The Ongoing Challenge - Tutorial The Illusion Of Capacity Incorporating the Complexity Of FAB Capacity (tool deployment & operating curve) into Central Planning for Demand-Supply Networks for the production of semiconductor based packaged goods with substantial non-FAB complexity Traditional CPE capacity with resource entities and its source in FAB Routes & Deployment in steady-state start patterns (never mind transitions ramp ups or downs) part 3 of 4 Dr. Ken Fordyce & John Fournier, IBM Prof. John Milne, Clarkson University Dr. Harpal Singh, CEO Arkieva 1 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Hunt for CAPAVAIL (& CAPREQ) in FAB Routes and Deployment 2 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Outline Overview of the Demand Supply Network for the production of semiconductor based package goods Decision Tiers Planned lack of tool uniformity Inherent variability Basics of Aggregate Factory Planning Aggregate FAB Planning Central Planning Two major challenges
Warring factions Can this wafer start profile be supported Near Term Deployment WIP Projection Basics of Central Planning Basic Functions Historical emphasis on non-FAB complexity Handle FAB Capacity with limits stated as wafer starts Alternate BOM for example Wafer start equivalents evolved to nested wafer starts Second look at capacity (CAPREQ and CAPAVAIL) Linear methods in central planning engines FAB complexity creates miss match Operating Curve and Cycle time Tax Creating CPE type capacity from routes and consumptions of tools The complexity of deployment & routes 3 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL definitions CAPREQ - establishing a consumption rate for each unit of production by that manufacturing activity for the selected resource CAPAVAIL - providing the total available capacity for the resource. connecting manufacturing releases (starts) to resource consumption with a linear relationship Route sequence of manufacturing actions Deployment (alternative Machines); PSO partially shared overlap between tools and operations
5 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Deployment / Alternative Machines PSO partially shared overlap between tools and operations Table 2.1: Deployment Information for PSO Group Tool A oper001 oper002 oper003 oper004 oper005 oper006 oper007 number opers tool covers 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 Tool B 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 Tool C 4 3 no tools covering oper 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 1
2 1 1 1 oper/tool link active 0 not allowed 6 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example to highlight search for CAPAVAIL & CAPREQ from resource entity to resource operations & tools 7 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) c) Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups
Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated 5) 6) 7) Six options Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL Quick look at Challenges for Heuristic Option Complexity of Interactions 8 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) c) 5) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 9 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL
Traditional CPE Capacity Information resource entity level no operations or tools Fixed Consumption Rate Traditional Capacity Information -- fixed consumption rate and capacity available Antelope Part Family Gazelle Lion CAPAVAIL Resource Entity shared by all part families MUV DUV ION ETCH 5 5 6 4 8 4 5 7 6 10 10 6 100 100 150 130 Fixed Capacity Available feature ANT/GAZ GAZ 2 0 1 1 0 0 30 15 into Traditional CPE Model 10 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Wafer Start Decision Variables
XA = number of wafers of Antelope XG = number of wafers of Gazelle XL = number of wafers of Lion Capacity Constraint Equations one for each resource entity 5 X A 8 X G 6 X L 100 MUV (eq 1 1) 5 X A 4 X G 10 X L 100 DUV (eq 1 2) 6 X A 5 X G 10 X L 150 ION (eq 1 3) 4 X A 7 X G 6 X L 130 ETCH (eq 1 4) 2 X A 1X G 0 X L 30 ANT/GAZ(eq1 5) 0 X A 1X G 0 X L 15 GAZ (eq 1 6) 11 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Traditional CPE BCD (best can do) Model Decision Variables and profit profit per total wafer profit $3.00 $60.00 $8.00 $80.00 $12.00 $192.00 $332.00 Part Fam # wafers Antelope 20.0 Gazelle 10.0 Lion 16.0 total 46.0 Table 3.3 Capacity Required, Available, used, and unused Resource Entity ION 6 5 10 330.0 350 20.0 ETCH 4 7 6 246.0 280
34.0 Table 3.4 Must Make Constraints starts type target Antelope 20.0 20 Gazelle 10.0 10 Lion 16.0 10 delta 0.0 0.0 -6.0 Table 3.5 Must Make Constraints starts type target Antelope 20.0 25 Gazelle 10.0 30 Lion 16.0 60 delta 5.0 20.0 44.0 Antelope Gazelle Lion Capacity used constraint Capacity available Capacity unused Part Family Part
Family Part Family MUV 5 8 6 276.0 300 24.0 DUV 5 4 10 300.0 300 0.0 Feature GAZ/ANT 2 1 0 50.0 50 0.0 Feature Gazelle 0 1 0 10.0 15 5.0 12 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Where do we get the CAPREQ & CAPAVAIL values? How does this relate to consumption of tools along the route Traditional Capacity Information -- fixed consumption rate and capacity available Antelope Part Family Gazelle Lion CAPAVAIL Resource Entity shared by all part families
MUV DUV ION ETCH 5 5 6 4 8 4 5 7 6 10 10 6 100 100 150 130 feature ANT/GAZ GAZ 2 0 1 1 0 0 30 15 Created from the complexity of FAB Routes Where do these values come from? FAB Routes 13 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Where do we get the CAPREQ & CAPAVAIL values? How does this relate to consumption of tools along the route FAB Routes Transform To simpler Capacity Statements Traditional Capacity Information -- fixed consumption rate and capacity available Antelope Part Family Gazelle Lion
CAPAVAIL Resource Entity shared by all part families MUV DUV ION ETCH 5 5 6 4 8 4 5 7 6 10 10 6 100 100 150 130 feature ANT/GAZ GAZ 2 0 1 1 0 0 30 15 14 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity
b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) c) 5) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 15 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Abbreviated Route for Antelope Focus MUV, DUV, ION, and ETCH toolsets FAB Routestool set Abbreviated Fabrication Route for Anteloppe raw process operation specific oper Seq tool set time id tools oper 001-009 varied 100 ? ?? oper 010 MUV 005 muvop01 ?? oper 011 ION 020 ? ?? oper 011-014 varied 030 ? ??
oper 015 DUV 008 ? ?? oper 016 ION 020 ? ?? oper 012-015 varied 030 ? ?? oper 016 DUV 008 ? ?? oper 017 ION 020 ? ?? oper 018-021 varied 030 ? ?? oper 022 DUV 008 ? ?? oper 023 nd ION 020 ? ?? oper 024-031 varied 060 ? ?? oper 032 MUV 005 muvop02 ?? oper 033 ION 018 ? ?? oper 034-037 varied 060
? ?? oper 038 MUV 005 muvop03 ?? oper 039 ION 019 ? ?? oper 040-060 varied 110 ? ?? oper 061 DUV 007 ? ?? This near term steady state deployment. At oper 062 ETCH 030 ? ?? dispatch, the tool options110for the lot oper 063-083 varied ? may be ?? oper 084 DUV 007 ? ?? different then the deployment for oper 085 ETCH 030 ? ?? engineering reasons opermanufacturing 086-094 varied 110
? ?? oper 095 MUV muvop01 ?? (temporary restriction) or005 business decision oper 096 ETCH 020 ? ?? for flow control and allocation imposed oper 097-105 varied 110 ? Fordyce,?? Fournier, Milne, Singh oper 106 MUV 005 muvop05 ?? Illusion FAB Capacity in??Central Planning hunt oper 107 ETCH of 020 ? sequence Tool set, rpt 2 MUV operation iden tools MUV DUV ION ETCH # passes 5 5
6 4 Each operation has an id An operation can be repeated within a route for the same part; operation can be used in multiple routes (parts) Each Operation ID has set of specific tools within the tool set that are deployed to this operation. Therefore the lot links to the tool options via the operation id SHARED 16 for CAPAVAIL Yes We should Use Raw process time tool set MUV DUV ION ETCH # passes 5 5 6 4 Pass count Is CAPREQ for Antelope Traditional Capacity Information -- fixed consumption rate and capacity available Antelope Part Family Gazelle Lion CAPAVAIL Resource Entity shared by all part families MUV DUV ION ETCH 5 5 6 4 8 4
5 7 6 10 10 6 100 100 150 130 feature ANT/GAZ GAZ 2 0 1 1 0 0 30 15 CAPAVAIL is number of passes available each time unit 17 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Tool Connection to find CAPAVAIL ? Antelope lot Route Operations 010 & 095 Lot Connects to Operation Operation Connects To Tools (deployment) Operation ID muvop01 Steady state deployment MUV Tool 01 MUV Tool 02 MUV Tool 03 MUV
Tool 04 MUV Tool 05 18 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Antelope lot Route Operations 010 & 095 Hunt for CAPAVAIL no easy answer? Short term adjustment Operation ID muvop01 Steady state deployment MUV Tool 01 MUV Tool 02 MUV Tool 04 MUV Tool 03 MUV Tool 05 19 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL RPT is HARD to Estimate 20 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count
a) b) 3) 4) Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) c) 5) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 22 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Focus on MUV Operations in Route Detailed Flow Sequence of Each Part through MUV unconcerned with time interval between passes pass pass 1 pass 2 pass 3 pass 4 pass 5 pass 6 pass 7 pass 8 Antelope(5) muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 muvop01 muvop05 na na na Antelope & MUV op01 -> op02 -> op03 -> op01 -> op05
operation muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 muvop04 muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 col sum Part Family Gazelle(8) muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 muvop01 muvop04 muvop04 muvop05 muvop05 Lion(6) muvop01 muvop02 muvop06 muvop06 muvop07 muvop05 na na Convert from Sequence to Count (passes) number times Part Family invokes a specific MUV operation unconcerned with sequence Part Family Antelope(5) Gazelle(8) Lion(6) 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 2
0 0 1 5 8 6 row sum 5 3 2 2 4 2 1 19 23 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Focus on MUV Operations in Route number times Part Family invokes a specific MUV operation unconcerned with Each Antelope sequence Part FamilyLot passes Antelope(5) Gazelle(8) Lion(6) row sum operation Through MUVop01 twice muvop01 2 2 1 5 muvop02 1 1 1 3 muvop03 If1 we assume all1 MUV operations0are the same2 muvop04 0 2 0 2 Then the column sum is the CAPREQ for
MUV Resource Entity muvop05 1 2 1 4 muvop06 0 0 2 2 muvop07 0 0 1 1 col sum 5 8 6 19 Under assumption every operation in 24 hours this is CAPREQ by MUV operation If the start mix is constant over an extended period of time Then the average workload per operation is the same each day independent of cycle time (measured in CTM cycle time multiplier) --- ignoring the need for idle without WIP capacity to be allocated to meet the cycle time objective; where the shorter the cycle time the more spare capacity has to be reserved 24 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Extending Capacity Required to All Unique MUV Operations Traditional Capacity Information -- fixed consumption rate and capacity available Antelope Part Family Gazelle Lion CAPAVAIL Resource Entity shared by all part families MUV DUV ION ETCH 5 5 6 4 8 4 5 7 6
10 10 6 100 100 150 130 feature ANT/GAZ GAZ 2 0 1 1 0 0 30 15 Original CAPREQ Lost visibility To which MUV operation CAPREQ (raditional CPE) for MUV Resource expanded to granular level of MUV Operations Antelope Part Gazelle Family Lion CAPAVAIL MUV muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 muvop04 muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 5 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 8 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 65 MUV passes 1 0 0 1 2
1 are1 split across 7 MUV operations 100 cap01? cap02? cap03? cap04? cap05? cap06? cap07? 21101- 0-0 From one MUV constraints to 7 one for each unique MUV operation How do we determine cap0X? 25 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL The Path From Route to CAPREQ for each MUV Operation Sequence Count Table 4: Detailed Flow Sequence of Each Part through MUV pass pass 1 pass 2 pass 3 pass 4 pass 5 pass 6 pass 7 pass 8 Part Family Gazelle(8) muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 muvop01 muvop04 muvop04 muvop05 muvop05 Antelope(5) muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 muvop01 muvop05 na na na Lion(6)
muvop01 muvop02 muvop06 muvop06 muvop07 muvop05 na na Table 5: number times Part Family invokes a specific MUV operation Part Family Antelope(5) Gazelle(8) Lion(6) operation muvop01 2 2 1 muvop02 1 1 1 muvop03 1 1 0 muvop04 0 2 0 muvop05 1 2 1 muvop06 0 0 2 muvop07 0 0 1 Table 6: CAPREQ from Table 1 for MUV Resource expanded to granular level of MUV Operations Antelope Part Gazelle Family Lion CAPAVAIL MUV 5 8 6 100
muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 muvop04 muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 cap01? cap02? cap03? cap04? cap05? cap06? cap07? CAPREQ each unique MUV operation Where CAPREQ is pass count at each MUV operation 26 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Extending MUV Resource Entity Capacity Equation To one equation for each unique MUV Operation 5 X A 8 X G 6 X L 100 MUV (eq 1 1) Eq (1-1) original model is replaced by Equation Set 1 Equation Set 1 One Equation for each of Seven MUV Operations 2 X A 2 X G 1X L cap 01? muvop01 (eq 1 1 1) tools 1X A 1X G 1X L cap02 ? muvop02 (eq 1 1 Link 2) How do We Determine cap0X? to operations 1X A 1X G 0 X L cap 03 ? muvop03 (eq 1 1 3) 0 X A 2 X G 0 X L cap04 ? muvop04 (eq 1 1 4) 1X A 2 X G 1X L cap 05 ? muvop05 (eq 1 1 5)
Hunt for CAPAVAIL 0 X A 0 X G 2 X L cap06 ? muvop06 (eq 1 1 6) 0 X A 0 X G 1X L cap 07 ? muvop07 (eq 1 1 7) 27 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) c) 5) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 28 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Linking MUV Operations to MUV Tools MUV Deployment Table Core Structure link 7 MUV operations with 5 MUV tools muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 MUV muvop04 Operations
muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 Capacity Avail MUVTL01 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? MUV Tools MUVTL02 MUVTL03 MUVTL04 MUVTL05 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ??? ??? ??? ? is 0 if tool can not service operation, 1 if it can more advanced version value is between 0 and 1 inclusive 29 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Linking MUV Operations to MUV Tools
MUV Deployment Table Core Structure link 7 MUV operations with 5 MUV tools muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 MUV muvop04 Operations muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 Capacity Avail MUVTL01 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? MUV Tools MUVTL02 MUVTL03 MUVTL04 MUVTL05 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??? ??? ??? ???
??? raw capacity available for tool after accounting various factors 30 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Raw Effective Capacity Available non-trivial to estimate 33 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) c) 5) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 34 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Linking MUV Operations to MUV Tools case 1 Simplest Case All Tools Can Handle All operations MUV Deployment Case - all tools handle all operations
muvop01 muvop02 MUV muvop03 Operati muvop04 ons muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 Capacity Avail MUVTL01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 MUV Tools MUVTL02 MUVTL03 MUVTL04 MUVTL05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20 20 20 Assume CAPAVAIL each tool is 20 35 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh
Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL When All tools can handle all Operations Capacity Consumption for MUV Can be represented with a single equation MUV Deployment Case - all tools handle all operations muvop01 muvop02 MUV muvop03 Operati muvop04 ons muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 Capacity Avail MUVTL01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 MUV Tools MUVTL02 MUVTL03 MUVTL04 MUVTL05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20
20 20 Equation Set 1 1 equation each MUV Operation 2 X A 2 X G 1X L cap01? muvop01 (eq 1 1 1) 1X A 1X G 1X L cap02 ? muvop02 (eq 1 1 2) 1X A 1X G 0 X L cap 03 ? muvop03 (eq 1 1 3) 0 X A 2 X G 0 X L cap 04 ? muvop04 (eq 1 1 4) 1X A 2 X G 1X L cap 05 ? muvop05 (eq 1 1 5) 0 X A 0 X G 2 X L cap 06 ? muvop06 (eq 1 1 6) 0 X A 0 X G 1X L cap 07 ? muvop07 (eq 1 1 7) Equation Set 1 Can be replace with this equation When all tools handle all operations 5 X A 8 X G 6 X L 100 MUV (eq 1 1) Original MUV Capacity Equation 36 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) 5) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations b)
Case 2: two independent groups c) Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 39 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Linking MUV Operations to MUV Tools Case 2 Case Two Independent Groups muvop01 muvop02 MUV muvop03 Operati muvop04 ons muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 Capacity Avail Two Complete Independent Groups MUV Tools MUVTL01 MUVTL02 MUVTL03 MUVTL04 MUVTL05 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 MUV can be divided into two independent Resource Entities MUV Resource Entity 1 (MUVRE1) tools 1, 2, and 3 - servicing operations 1, 2, and 3 MUV Resource Entity 2 (MUVRE2) tools 4 and 5 - servicing operations 4, 5, 6, and 7 40 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Divide Equation Set into two groups 2 X A 2 X G 1X L cap 01? muvop01 (eq 1 1 1) 1X A 1X G 1X L cap02 ? muvop02 (eq 1 1 2) 1X A 1X G 0 X L cap 03 ? muvop03 (eq 1 1 3) Equation Set MUV-RE1 0 X A 2 X G 0 X L cap 04 ? muvop04 (eq 1 1 4) 1X A 2 X G 1X L cap 05 ? muvop05 (eq 1 1 5) 0 X A 0 X G 2 X L cap 06 ? muvop06 (eq 1 1 6) 0 X A 0 X G 1X L cap 07 ? muvop07 (eq 1 1 7) Equation Set MUV-RE2 Equation Set MUV the 7 MUV Operations split into two Equation Sets (MUV-RE1 and MUV-RE2) 41 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL When MUV can be split into two independent components Capacity Consumption for MUV can be represented with two equations muvop01 muvop02 MUV muvop03 Operati muvop04 ons muvop05 muvop06 muvop07 Capacity Avail Two Complete Independent Groups MUV Tools
MUVTL01 MUVTL02 MUVTL03 MUVTL04 MUVTL05 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 20 20 20 20 20 Equation Set 1 Is split into Equation Set 2 and Set 3 2 X A 2 X G 1X L cap01? muvop01 (eq 1 1 1) 1X A 1X G 1X L cap 02 ? muvop02 (eq 1 1 2) 1X A 1X G 0 X L cap03 ? muvop03 (eq 1 1 3) Equation Set 2 Operation 1, 2, 3 and tools 1,2, 3 Equation Set 2 and 3 each can be replaced with single equation When all tools handle all operations within A specific group of tools and operations 4 X A 4 X G 2 X L 60 MUVRE 1 (eq 5 3) Replaces Equation Set 2
0 X A 2 X G 0 X L cap04 ? muvop04 (eq 1 1 4) 1X A 2 X G 1X L cap 05 ? muvop05 (eq 1 1 5) 0 X A 0 X G 2 X L cap06 ? muvop06 (eq 1 1 6) 1X A 4 X G 4 X L 40 MUVRE 2 (eq 5 5) Replaces Equation Set 3 0 X A 0 X G 1X L cap 07 ? muvop07 (eq 1 1 7) Equation Set 3 Operation 4, 5, 6, 7 and tools 4, 5 43 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups c) Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated 5) Six options Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 44
Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Linking MUV Operations to MUV Tools Real world complexity non-uniform deployment Complicated MUVRE1 non-uniform coverage MUV Tools MUVTL01 MUVTL02 MUVTL03 MUVTL04 MUVTL05 1 1 0 muvop01 0 0 1 0 1 muvop02 0 0 MUVRE1 MUV muvop03 0 1 0 0 0 all1 tools do not Operati muvop04 1 0 0 0 1 1 all operations ons muvop05 0 0 0 handle 1 1 0 0 0 op01 muvop06 serviced by TL01 & TL02 1 1 0 0 0 op02 muvop07 serviced by TL01 & TL03 Capacity Avail 20
20 20 20 20 op03 serviced by TL02 TL01 TL02 op03 op01 TL03 op02 45 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL The Critical Question How does non-uniform deployment Impact our ability to estimate cap01, cap02, and cap03 2 X A 2 X G 1X L cap 01? muvop01 (eq 1 1 1) 1X A 1X G 1X L cap 02 ? muvop02 (eq 1 1 2) 1X A 1X G 0 X L cap 03 ? muvop03 (eq 1 1 3) Equation Set MUV-RE1 It creates a situation that requires a careful balance between solution accuracy, model complexity, model performance, and stressing the social order 46 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Six Options 1. 2. 3. 4. Maximize Capacity Flexibility Minimize Capacity Flexibility projected wafer start profile modify traditional method for capacity to handle or conditions 5. Capacity Allocation Decision Variable 6. Combination of options using heuristics to create resource entity 47 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL
Six Options 1 Maximize Capacity Flexibility - make the assumption all tools can handle all operations and continue to use a single Easiest equation for MUV-RE1. The risk is we overstate capacity risk more flexibility potentially committing the FAB toBut produce than it is able to produce. If the deviation from uniformity is low, this is a reasonable option. 2 Minimize Capacity Flexibility - Establish a fixed allocation of tool capacity for tools 01, 02, and 03 to each operational Pretty easy constraint enabling us to estimate cap01, cap02, and cap03risk and Lowest initial use a constraint equation for each operation and accept the risk of turning away business. When demand patterns have limited deviation over time, this is a reasonable option. 48 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Option 2: Fixed Allocation Fixed Allocation of Tools to Operations for MUV RE1 Wafer Start Profile and Capacity Required per Wafer part family Wafer Starts Group 7 Antelope 5 Gazelle 5 Lion Capacity Needed example calculations MUVRE1 Operations capacity required per unit start muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 29
17 12 29=2(7)+2(5)+1(5) total na na na 58 58=29+17+12 Fixed Percentage Allocation of Each Tool to Each Operation in MUVRE1 MUV Tool muvop01 CAPAVAIL muvop02 muvop03 total 20 MUVTL01 100.0% 0.0% NA 100.0% 20 MUVTL02 40.0% NA 60.0% 100.0% 20 MUVTL03 NA 85.0% NA 85.0% <-- total capacity available 60 Actual Capacity Allocated from each tool to each operation MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 MUVTL01 20.0 0.0 0.0 MUVTL02 8.0 0.0 12.0 MUVTL03 0.0 17.0 0.0 example calculations 20=20x1 17=20x0.85 12=20x0.6 Capacity Allocated example calculations
28.0 28=20+8+0 17.0 12.0 total 20.0 20.0 17.0 57.0 57=28+17+12 49 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Option 2: Fixed Allocation CAPREQ CAP need Allocation percentage Actual CAPAVAIL Table 3.14 Example of pre-allocation of capacity to each operation which rejects a wafer start profile the FAB can handle Table 3.14a Wafer Start Profile and Capacity Required per Wafer MUV Operations in Group 1 part family capacity required per unit start Wafer Starts Group muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total 5 Antelope 2 1 1 na 5 Gazelle 2 1 1 na 4 Lion 1 1
0 na Capacity Needed 24 14 10 48 example calculations 24=2(5)+2(5)+1(4) 48=24+14+10 Table 3.14b Pre-allocation percentage of each tool to each operation CAPAVAIL MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total MUVTL01 NA 20 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% MUVTL02 NA 20 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% MUVTL03 NA NA 20 100.0% 100.0% <-- total capacity available 60 change from table 3.10- TL03 is allowed to service op03 and is given a 15% allocation. The allocation from TL02 to op01 is increased from 40% to 45%. The allocation from TL02 to op03 is changed from 60% to 45%, Table 3.14c Actual Capacity Allocated from each tool to each operation MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total MUVTL01 14.0 6.0 0.0 20.0 MUVTL02 4.0 0.0 16.0 20.0 MUVTL03 0.0 20.0 0.0
20.0 example calculations 14=20x0.7 20=20x1 16=20x0.8 Capacity Allocated example calculations Need vs Available 18.0 18=14+4+0 26.0 16.0 60.0 60=18+26+16 Table 3.14d Analysis of Capacity Needed versus Allocated and Available muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total Capacity Allocated 18.0 26.0 16.0 60.0 Capacity Needed 24.0 14.0 10.0 48.0 -6.0 delta= allocated - need 12.0 6.0 12.0 meaning The -6, saysFAB does not have sufficient capacity unused capacity 0.0 =60-60 SIX SHORT 50 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Six Options 3 Create a projected wafer start profile that would include demand priorities translated to the starts and use optimization to simultaneously make start decisions and allocate tools between operations to maximize supply against prioritized demand. (extension of CAPS / EPOS). Downside is we do not know the
wafer start pattern until after the CPE runs to determine the best can do (BCD) start profile to meet prioritized demand. Therefore we would need to partition the CPE into an explode run and an implode run and loosely couple the FAB model with the rest of the CPE probably in an iterative approach. 4 Modify the traditional method of stating capacity restrictions in CPE models to include the or conditions. This similar to, but not identical with, handling alternative operations in CPEs. 51 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Six Options 5 Introduce a capacity allocation decision set to the model which is described in the next section. There is a rich history of this type of approach in FAB tool More details planning dating back to at least the early 1980s in Next slides practice and literature. This decision set is close to Dynamic option 2 the M variable in Hung and Cheng (2002). 6 Institute a combination of these options guided by some heuristics to combine tools where reasonable into a single resource for the CPE and establish other structures to handle problem tool sets. 52 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a) b) 3) 4) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Fixed or Input to Model Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL Becomes a model decision a) Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations
b) Case 2: two independent groups c) Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated 5) Six options Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 54 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Capacity Allocation Decision Variable 2 X A 2 X G 1X L cap01? muvop01 (eq 1 1 1) 1X A 1X G 1X L cap 02 ? muvop02 (eq 1 1 2) 1X A 1X G 0 X L cap03 ? muvop03 (eq 1 1 3) The values for cap01?, cap02?, and cap03? (CAPAVAIL) in equation set MUV-RE1 are limited to being some combination of capacity allocated to each operational constraint from tools 01, 02, and 03 that does not violate deployment restrictions and does not allocate more than 100% of each tool. The decision on what percentage of each tool to allocate to each constraint (cap0N?) determines the CAPAVAIL for each capacity constraint equation which directly influences the wafer start profile the FAB can support. 55 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Capacity Allocation Decision Variable Capacity Allocation Decision Variables MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 constraint on row total MUVTL01 NA ?? ?? 1 MUVTL02 NA ?? ?? 1 MUVTL03 NA NA
?? 1 ?? Fraction of tool assigned to operation 0 ?? 1 NA Deployment Decision does not allow this tool to service this operation The values in cells are a set of decision variables, where the goal is to assign fractions of tools to operations to best meet some set of criteria without exceeding 100% allocation or violating restrictions established by the deployment table 56 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Table 11b: Specific Allocation of each tool to each operation CAPAVAIL MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 MUVTL01 NA 20 100.0% 0.0% MUVTL02 NA 20 40.0% 60.0% MUVTL03 NA NA 20 85.0% <-- total capacity available 60 total 100.0% 100.0% 85.0% Table 12: Actual CAPAVAIL based on allocation of raw tool capacity MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total MUVTL01 20.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 MUVTL02 8.0 0.0 12.0 20.0 MUVTL03 0.0 17.0
0.0 17.0 CAPAVAIL cap01? = cap02? = cap03? = Capacity Available 28.0 17.0 12.0 57.0 57 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL CAPREQ CAP need Allocation percentage Actual CAPAVAIL Table 3.14 Example of pre-allocation of capacity to each operation which rejects a wafer start profile the FAB can handle Table 3.14a Wafer Start Profile and Capacity Required per Wafer MUV Operations in Group 1 part family capacity required per unit start Wafer Starts Group muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total 5 Antelope 2 1 1 na 5 Gazelle 2 1 1 na 4 Lion 1 1 0 na Capacity Needed 24 14 10
48 example calculations 24=2(5)+2(5)+1(4) 48=24+14+10 Table 3.14b Pre-allocation percentage of each tool to each operation CAPAVAIL MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total MUVTL01 NA 20 70.0% 30.0% 100.0% MUVTL02 NA 20 20.0% 80.0% 100.0% MUVTL03 NA NA 20 100.0% 100.0% <-- total capacity available 60 change from table 3.10- TL03 is allowed to service op03 and is given a 15% allocation. The allocation from TL02 to op01 is increased from 40% to 45%. The allocation from TL02 to op03 is changed from 60% to 45%, Table 3.14c Actual Capacity Allocated from each tool to each operation MUV Tool muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total MUVTL01 14.0 6.0 0.0 20.0 MUVTL02 4.0 0.0 16.0 20.0 MUVTL03 0.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 example calculations 14=20x0.7 20=20x1 16=20x0.8 Capacity Allocated example calculations
Need vs Available Allocation Decision Now made By model Not an input 18.0 18=14+4+0 26.0 16.0 60.0 60=18+26+16 Table 3.14d Analysis of Capacity Needed versus Allocated and Available muvop01 muvop02 muvop03 total Capacity Allocated 18.0 26.0 16.0 60.0 Capacity Needed 24.0 14.0 10.0 48.0 -6.0 delta= allocated - need 12.0 6.0 12.0 meaning The -6, saysFAB does not have sufficient capacity unused capacity 0.0 =60-60 58 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Example Steps 1) 2) Traditional CPE - capacity constraints at resource entity level a) No details on operations and tools FAB Routes sequence, pass count a)
b) 3) 4) Using pass counts to create CAPREQ for each resource entity Preliminary search for CAPAVAIL Focus on MUV resource entity incorporating tools and operations a) Creating capacity constraints for each MUV operation instead of one constraint for the MUV resource entity b) Determining CAPREQ with pass count at each unique MUV operation c) Hunt for CAPAVAIL Cases / Options to find CAPAVAIL a) b) Case 1: simplest, all tools can service all operations Case 2: two independent groups c) Case 3: asymmetric deployment life gets complicated 5) Six options Capacity Allocation Variable set and Dynamic CAPAVAIL 6) Quick look at Challenges for Heuristic Option 60 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL MUV Implant Strip Wets Oper A-1 Tools 1, 2 MUV Prod A Implant Strip Wets
Oper A-2 Tools 2, 3 MUV Implant Strip 3 MUV Passes Wets Oper A-3 Tools 3 MUV Implant Strip Wets Oper B-1 Tools 1, 2 MUV Oper B-2 Tools 2 Prod B Implant Strip Wets 2 MUV 61 Passes Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL More Complex Deployment Case 1 Non-Uniform Deployment 1 oper/tool link active 0 not allowed Tool 1 oper A-1
Oper A-2 Oper A-3 Oper B-1 Oper B-2 number opers tool covers 1 0 0 1 0 2 Tool 2 1 1 0 1 1 Tool 3 4 2 no tools covering oper 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 2 1 Do we keep Tool 1, 2, & 3 in one Resource Entity that services all five operations? if Yes, then we overstate the capacity of the Resource Entity because we assume more flexibility exists to balance workloads among the tools than really exists Do we split them into two Resource entities with a slight tweak of deployment? If yes, then we understate the capacity of the two resource entities, since more flexibility exists to tradeoff than we have expressed. On the other hand, because two of the tools would be grouped together, that grouping overstates the capacity (and flexibility within that group) 64 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Deployment Case 1 - modified to create two groups Tool 1 oper A-1
Oper A-2 Oper A-3 Oper B-1 Oper B-2 number opers tool covers 1 0 0 1 0 2 Tool 2 1 0 0 1 1 Tool 3 3 2 no tools covering oper 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 In this case we have two resource entities Tool 3 services operations A-2 and A-3 Change from 1 to 0 Tools 1 and 2 service operations A-1, B-1, B-2 But not uniformly How does RPT influence resource entity creation? Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh 65
Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Tools have Different Efficiencies (RPT) oper A-1 Oper A-2 Oper A-3 Oper B-1 Oper B-2 ave RPT Tool 1 11 21 21 11 11 15 Tool 2 13 40 30 14 14 22.2 Tool 3 ave RPT 12 12 12 12 12 12 12.00 24.33 21.00 12.33 12.33 16 How does RPT influence tool entity creation? Tool B is very slow on Oper A-2, so splitting it into two entities makes sense. However if the load on part A is high and part B is low, then Tool C processes A2 and A-3 must faster than either Tool A or Tool B 66 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Table 3.3: RPT information for Circult Layers Potential Deployment
oper A-1 Oper A-2 Oper A-3 Oper B-1 Oper B-2 number opers tool covers Tool A 11 21 21 11 11 15 Tool B 13 40 30 14 14 Tool C 22.2 12 ave RPT 12 12 12 12 12 12.00 24.33 21.00 12.33 12.33 16 Table 3.2: Alternative Deployment for Circult Layers Current Deployment Tool A oper A-1 Oper A-2 Oper A-3 Oper B-1 Oper B-2 number opers tool covers
1 0 0 1 0 2 Tool B 1 0 0 1 1 Tool C 3 2 0 1 1 0 0 no tools covering oper 2 1 1 2 1 Shows difference between potential deployment (RPT) and current deployment 67 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Traditional CPE INPUT Parameters CYCLE TIME CAPAVAIL WAFER STARTS Decisions CAPREQ allocation of shared CAPAVAIL implicit
Customer Requirements (demand) 68 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Behind the Drapes of a Traditional CPE FAB Detail Decisions which influence CAPAVAIL Cycle Time Alpha offset CYCLE TIME Tool Utilization Tool Allocation Across Opers Deployment & Route (opers) INPUT Parameters Traditional CPE CAPAVAIL WAFER STARTS Decisions CAPREQ allocation of shared CAPAVAIL implicit Customer Requirements (demand) 69 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL Complexity of Interactions Wafer Start Decision Profit, client (demand) requirements Linked with capacity required actual capacity needed
Cycle Time Decision Linked with OPCurve utilization level required to meet cycle time; cost in terms of capacity idle without WIP or tax to meet cycle time commit Raw Capacity Available Decision linked to utilization effective capacity available Capacity allocation constrained by deployment linked to effective capacity available actual capacity available Wafer start decision is feasible when Capacity needed Capacity Available optimal meeting prioritized set of demands over time Now requires balancing: starts, cycle time, capacity allocation And perhaps deployment 70 Fordyce, Fournier, Milne, Singh Illusion of FAB Capacity in Central Planning hunt for CAPAVAIL
Stramenopila - Cornell University College of Agriculture and ...
Stramenopila Other Characteristics Motile spores formed in a sporangium Sexual reproduction by gametangial contact Diploid through most of the life cycle Somatic structures are unicellular and holocarpic, or rhizoidal, or coenocytic.