qna l6 s project aa cmp oxide range reduction (oct 08)

Lean Six Sigma Project:CMP Oxide Film ThicknessUniformity Improvementy p

FINAL REPORTOctober 2008

Norbert GloserQimonda Operational Excellence

Qimonda confidential

ContentsD A I CM

1) Introduction to CMP Basics2) DMAIC Phase Summary) y

• Define Phase• Measure Phase

A l Ph• Analyze Phase• Improve Phase• Control Phase

3) Project Summary4) Appendix

• DMAIC Tool Summary• Tollgate Approvals• Control Plan• Transition Plan• Glossary

CMP Basic 1:What is CMP? D A I CM

Functional principle of CMP

The process uses an abrasive and corrosive slurry in conjunction with acorrosive slurry in conjunction with a polishing pad. Pad and wafer are pressed together by a dynamic polishing head and held in placedynamic polishing head and held in place by a plastic retaining ring. The dynamic polishing head is rotated with different axes of rotation. This removes material and tends to even out any irregular topography, making the y g p g p y, gwafer flat or planar.

CMP Basic 2: How does the 4-Zone Polishing Head work? D A I CM

• Each Polishing Head has 4 zones to control Uniformity through varying air pressures:CAP: Center Air Pressure (0mm 30mm)– CAP: Center Air Pressure (0mm - 30mm)

– RAP: Ripple Air Pressure (31mm - 64mm)– OAP: Outer Air Pressure (65mm - 84mm)– EAP: Edge Air Pressure (85mm – 100mm)

• The Polishing Chamber Pressure (PCP) is used to adjust the overall polishing pressure of the head and normally held constant.

DMAIC MethodologyD A I CM

DEFINE P j t d t i tDEFINE: Project scope, purpose and customer requirements

MEASURE: Baseline of underlying processS y g p

ANALYZE: Collect data for trend, root causes, key input drivers

IMPROVE: Current process by improving input variation (DOE)

CONTROL: Inputs discovered in previous steps

CMP Oxide Film ThicknessUniformity Improvement D A I CM

Business Case: Opportunity:The non-uniformity of the a CMP Oxide process contributes extensively to the yield loss at the Qimonda Richmond 200mm Plant (QR2). The device yield loss (non-functional chips) is 2.3%.The reduction of CMP non-uniformity at this step will results in $4 1 Mi S i

yQimonda not satisfied with 80nm technology yield from QR2. Opportunity exists to improve QR2 80nm yield by improving uniformity in the AA module.The CMP AA Oxide process is a main contributor to the these yield detractors.

$4.1 Mio. Savings per year.

Goal:Reduce AA Post Oxide within wafer range (lot average) from550A to 320A by September 2008 (based on comparison to

Scope:In scope: AA Oxide uniformity, Ebara FREX toolset

550A to 320A by September 2008 (based on comparison to Qimonda Richmond 300m – QR3 bench mark) on T80 product. Not in scope: 110nm, AA defectivity, other CMP processes, AMAT

MIRRA toolset

Roadmap: Core Team:

Role NameRole Name6S BB Norbert Gloser QR2 CMP PE Mark CollinsQR2 CMP PE Kam HettiaratchiQR3 CMP PE Andreas FischerQR2 CMP EE Nishant ChadhaPI Han Park

Project SelectionVOC and financial return D A I CM

ROCE

EBIT TAX Capital EBIT TAX Capital employed

CostRevenue

ASP Volume

TtM Prod. Qual. Fab Output

WSPW Financial return:- Approx. 4.1 Mio revenue per year

A tiCT R&D time

lineFab Yield Wafer Yield

AA divots

Assumptions:- increase in YBS3 of 2.3%(additional 11 512MB chips per wafer)

- ASP of $1.65/chip- 5000 WSPW

CMP AAuniformity

- Yield improvement on all 80nm products

Project DefinitionD A I CM

• Problem Statement:• What: Yield loss due to high AA Post

• Metrics:• Primary Metric:What: Yield loss due to high AA Post

Oxide within Wafer Range

• Where: CMP AA TEOS in QR2

• When: Since QR2 T80 start up

Primary Metric: • AA Post Oxide within Wafer Range

• Secondary Metrics: • When: Since QR2 T80 start-up

• Problem indicator: Yield loss, Physical Failure Analysis, QR3 benchmark results

• Yield

• Consequential Metrics:• Cycle Time, Cost of Ownership (CoO)y , p ( )

• Objective Statement:• Currently: OxRgMean = 544A

E titl t O R 230A

• Financial Metric:• Yield gain: 2.3%

Chi t t 55 000 ( k) • Entitlement: OxRgMean = 230A(QR3 benchmark)

• Goal: OxRgMean = 320A(70% f t b h k)

• Chip output: 55,000 (per week)(Est. depending on weekly wafer starts and product mix)

T t l ROI $4 1 Mi ( ) (70% of gap to benchmark)• Total ROI: $4.1 Mio. (per year)(Est. depending on chip price)

Project TeamD A I CM

Define Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM

Summary:Used VOC to select project

Tools/methodologies used:Voice of customer (VOC)- Used VOC to select project

- Defined problem statement- Defined AA Post Oxide within Wafer

- Voice of customer (VOC)

Rang as primary metric- Defined secondary and

consequential metricsconsequential metrics- Provided currently capability and

compared it to benchmark- Set goal for primary metric based on

70% gap- Identified ROI of $4.1 Mio. Per year$ y- Selected team members

Process Map:Macro Map D A I CM

Bench Marking and Process Capability D A I CM

QR2 QR3 (benchmark)

900

1000

Mean(Range(Post Ox))

900

1000

OXRG mean 70% of gap to QR3 performance=> target: 320A

400

500

600

700

800

900

400

500

600

700

800

900

Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX

gRemark:320A is the goal for mean value and not the Upper Spec Limit.As there is no spec limit existing we used the goal for the capability calculation.

0

100

200

300

400

Quantiles

0

100

200

300

400

Quantiles

USL

LSL *Target *USL 320

Process Data

Potential (Within) C apability

WithinOverall


100.0%99.5%97.5%90.0%75.0%50.0%

maximum

quartilemedian

376.17376.17362.17302.03275.67221.50

Quantiles100.0%99.5%97.5%90.0%75.0%50.0%

maximum

quartilemedian

864.61864.61790.87698.74602.62531.53

QuantilesSample Mean 585.894Sample N 305StDev (Within) 108.412StDev (O v erall) 174.87

Z.Bench -2.45Z.LSL *Z.USL -2.45C pk -0.82

Z.Bench -1.52Z.LSL *

O v erall C apability

Less than 25.0%10.0%2.5%0.5%0.0%

quartile

minimum

199.83161.78124.5796.1796.17

Moments

25.0%10.0%2.5%0.5%0.0%

quartile

minimum

457.22410.36376.45361.14361.14

Moments

Z.USL -1.52Ppk -0.51C pm *

2%of lots meet 320A target

MeanStd DevStd Err Meanupper 95% Meanlower 95% MeanN

230.3917854.1040326.4209673

243.198217.58557

71

MeanStd DevStd Err Meanupper 95% Meanlower 95% MeanN

543.76823108.6510710.087998563.75062523.78585

116

12001050900750600450300

% < LSL *% > USL 98.03% Total 98.03

O bserv ed Performance% < LSL *% > USL 99.29% Total 99.29

Exp. Within Performance% < LSL *% > USL 93.58% Total 93.58

Exp. O v erall Performance

May-08 data

Fishbone Diagram:Uniformity = F(X) D A I CM

M t M t i l P l

C&E Diagram - AA CMP Uniformity Improvement

Measurements Material Personnel

Manual ops

Slurry

PadQual

ntsAdj ustm

e

select io nPP ID

DC

operat edM

f g

operat edPENum

ber

s Groov e

Top

Sub

tionDist ribu

n Filtrat io

Type

to ProdCorrelation

F requen zy

Alignm

L ocat

# of s

Sampl

Personnel

Incoming

Consum lifetime

Conditioner

Head

y

In-situ

Product

ddberaneMem

brRR

STI DEPTH

AA HDP

SELOX

ment

cation

f sites

mpling

NovaEP

(Yield)Funct ional

Parametr icPLY

L eica

AFM

KL A

mity(non)uniforAA CMPProduct type

Warm-up wfrs

Rework

Head rebuild

Ex-situ

Prorities

Mea sure data

Tool d ata

cYaML A

PMs

Tool capability

Automation

Process Control

Procedures

PPIDWorkload

typeHead

versionSW

Tool type

Calibrations

Schedule

ConditiT i

ZoneP

Ca rrier

Tab le

Slur ry

Ramp-

Ram

FME

entationDocumOCA

PMOP

R2R

L imitsControl

Limits

Spe c

aa

ramp

# of tools

Environment Methods Machines

Tool capabilityPPIDWorkload

P

Pareto C&E Matrix:Define X’s D A I CM

C&E ranking

36

38

40

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

26

28

30

32

34

36

65 00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

18

20

22

24

26

Scor

e

45.00%

50.00%

55.00%

60.00%

65.00%

% c

um

8

10

12

14

16

20 00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

0

2

4

6

8

s a e R s g d g p n P H d d p s n b P s X P w e e s n r r

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

Zone Pres

sures Nova

Head ty

peR2R

Groove

sRet.

Ring

Head re

build

Conditioning

Ramp-up

Ramp-down EP

STI DEPTH

Table

Speed

Carrier

Speed

Top

Control L

imits

Locatio

nSubPCP

OCAPsSELOXAA H

DPSlurry

FlowTyp

e

Consum lif

etime

Calibrat

ionsDist

ributio

nConditio

nerOther

Potential X

Measure Phase Summary& LSS Tools used D A I CM

Summary:Mapped material flow through AA

Tools/methodologies used:Process Flow Diagram- Mapped material flow through AA

TEOS CMP area- Collected data for current process

d b h k

- Process Flow Diagram- Data Collection- Capability Analysis

and benchmark- Goal is 70% gap: 320A- Current capability is less than 2%

- Benchmarking- C&E Fishbone

Current capability is less than 2%- Used 6M Fishbone Diagram to

identify inputs to uniformity/range

- C&E Matrix- Pareto Diagram- Potential X’s- Surveyed CMP experts to create

C&E matrix- Identified TOP5 inputs using Pareto

- Potential X s

p gDiagram

D A I CMTOP 5 inputs & proposed changes X=f(x)

C&ECategory

1st levelCategory

RootCause Score Proposed Changes Resources Capital

requiredDetermine preferable ZP

Method Recipe Zone Pressures 38Determine preferable ZP adjustments to minimize CMP non-uniformity

CMP PE / R2R NO

Machine Tool capability Head type 36 Analyze process capability between Gen I and Gen II tools CMP PE NObetween Gen I and Gen II tools

Meaurement In-situ Measurements Nova 36

Evaluate usage of Nova in-situ film thickness measurment tools on Ebara FREX 200 toolsets

Nova / CMP PE / CMP EE YES

Develop methodology to IT / Eb / CMPMethod Automation Run-2-Run 33

Develop methodology to automatically adjust tool para-meters to minimize CMP non-uniformity

IT / Ebara / CMP PE / CMP EE / R2R

YES

M t i l P d G 32 Evaluate X-Y grooved pad used CMP PE NOMaterial Pad Grooves 32 g pat QR3 CMP PE NO

Radial Profiles:12-pt. vs. 85-pt. D A I CM

Post Oxide - Radial Profiles3300

Local

3000

3100

3200 Underpolish

2800

2900

3000

thic

knes

s [A

]

Edge AirbagOuter AirbagRipple AirbagCenter Airbag Both defects“Yi ld Kill ”

2600

2700

Post

Oxi

de “Yield Killers”

2400

2500

85-pt.12-pt.

LocalOverpolish

12-pt. thickness measurement are used in production for capacity reasons

23000 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Radius [mm]

p Overpolishin production for capacity reasons.

Tool capability Improvement:Head style D A I CM

800

900

Oneway Analysis of WIW OXRG By Head

Observation:Gen I head (CMP 22) has in average a 70A

500

600

700

800

WIW

OX

RG

Gen I head (CMP_22) has in average a 70Ahigher range than Gen II head (CMP_23/26)

Conclusion:Two options for improvement:

200

300

400

W

GEN I GEN II Each Pair

Two options for improvement:1. Use only Gen II tools and use Gen I only

as backup only when WIP is high(tool dedication per dispatch software and per SOP).GEN I GEN II

Head

Student's t0.05

Missing Rows 9

Quantiles

and per SOP).2. Upgrade CMP_22 to Gen II head

capability (approx $140K).(To be implemented after capitalfreeze lifted).

GEN IGEN II

Level256.492195.194

Minimum332.5238265.6953

10%383.1553306.2185

25%435.597366.73

Median488.5748433.315

75%589.5398539.445

90%845.6733

921.5

Maximum

Quantiles

Means and Std Deviations

freeze lifted).

Improvements:From: 454ATo: 386A

GEN IGEN II

Level200304

Number454.292385.894

Mean117.877119.490

Std Dev8.33526.8532

Std Err Mean437.86372.41

Lower 95%470.73399.38

Upper 95%To: 386AΔ: 68A

Analysis Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM

Summary:Identified TOP5 critical inputs (X)

Tools/methodologies used:ID critical X’s- Identified TOP5 critical inputs (X)

and performed root cause analysis (RCA) to identify input factors (x)A l i b i f DOE

- ID critical X s- Root Cause Analysis- DOE Planning

- Analysis was basis for DOEs - Performed 85-pt. measurement to

identify the “true” profile of Oxide

- Data Collection- Graphical Analysis

- Oxide Range driven by zone 4 only- Compared CMP tools with old GEN I

head to ones with new GEN II head

- ANOVA- Hypothesis Testing- Quick Improvementshead to ones with new GEN II head

=> GEN II has lower OxRg- Implemented to use GEN I tools as

- Quick Improvements

“back-up only” (EASY WIN)

New pad type DOE: Experimental Plan D A I CM

Practical Problem Statement:The current 12 pt WIW range is 375A

Factors & Levels of interest:Pad (POR XY groove)- The current 12-pt. WIW range is 375A

(4-week average) and therefore above our project target of 320A (primary effect)

- The current 13-pt. WIW range of larger than

- Pad (POR, XY-groove)- Slurry flow (100 ml/min, 250 ml/min)- Table Speed (50 rpm, 120 rpm)

C i S d (50 120 )p g g

900A is also not acceptable (secondary effect) - Carrier Speed (50 rpm, 120 rpm)

Experimental Objective Statement: Experiment & Sample SizeExperimental Objective Statement:- The objective of this experiment/DOE is to find

a new process (consumable and process settings) to achieve results comparable to the

Experiment & Sample Size- 2K Factorial Design- 4 factors

N t i t bl ki lig ) p

QR3 80nm Ebara process:- 12-pt. WIW range < 320A

- 13-pt. WIW range < 600A

- No center points, blocking or replicas- 16 runs- Run DOE on CMP_23CM (Gen II head)

New pad type: DOE Optimizer & Tolerance D A I CM

The sweet spot is at:- TS: 50rpmTS: 50rpm- CS: 51rpm

(1rpm offset to TS required)- SF: 100ml/minResults: WIW range of 285A

Settings below cause defectivity, endpoint issues & slow process speedsp p p

10% deviation from those values still allows to achieve target of 320A

New pad type: Process Optimization D A I CM

Estimated Effects and Coefficients for EP (coded units)Term Effect Coef SE Coef T PConstant 118.5 1.8 65.5 0.000

Estimated Coefficients for Oxrg12 using data inuncoded unitsTerm CoefPad 13.7 6.8 1.8 3.7 0.005

TS -42.2 -21.1 1.8 -11.5 0.000CS -16.6 -8.3 1.8 -4.5 0.001SF 11.3 5.7 1.8 3.1 0.012

Term CoefConstant -141Pad -120TS 1.6CS 4 5

R-Sq = 95.52%

CS 4.5SF 2.7Pad*TS 1.8CS*SF -0.02

Conclusions:

Formula:OxRg(12) = -141 - 120*Pad + 1.6*TS + 4.5*CS +

2.7*SF + 1.8*Pad*TS - 0.02*CS*SF

Conclusions:All main factors are significant.Two 2-way interactions are significant: Pad*TS & CS*SFThe optimum process settings are:

with (POR = -1, XY = +1)XY-grooved pad Table Speed: 50rpmCarrier Speed: 51rpm Slurry Flow: 100ml/min

Slurry flow below 100ml/min causes microscratches. Physical meaning:Th O id d ith f XY d d

yPer CMP experienced TS and CS are matched with 1rpm

off-set.

The Oxide range decreases with use of XY pad and decreasing slurry flow, carrier speed and table speed until the process speed is to slow to be manufacturable.

New pad type split lots:Radial Profiles and Range D A I CM

Radial Profiles: OLD vs. NEW

3200

3300

1000

1100

Oneway Analysis of Range12 By Split1

OAPRAPCAP

2900

3000

3100

3200

400

500

600

700

800

900

Ran

ge12

2600

2700

2800

2900

Post

Ox

[A]

200

300

400

POR XY

Split1

Quantiles

2300

2400

2500

2600

OLD

NEW

OLD:12-pt. range: 533Amax. range: 794A

NEW:12-pt. range: 385Amax. range: 504A

PORXY

Level315.43214.08

Minimum366.895283.012

10%429.2275321.0725

25%501.785387.845

Median709.0125412.9775

75%824.48488.67

90%1005.18613.05

Maximum

PORLevel

94Number

563.400Mean

174.446Std Dev

17.993Std Err Mean

527.67Lower 95%

599.13Upper 95%

Means and Std Deviations

EAP2300

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Radius [mm]

XY 52 378.785 79.771 11.062 356.58 400.99

Improvements:From: 563A

Difference in 12-pt. WIW range to DOE (378A vs. 285A) is due to fact, that split lots had to be run on MP_22CM (Gen I head) as other tools were down or used for production. Also zone pressures were not optimized on that tool (CMP 22CM)

To: 378AΔ: 185A

pressures were not optimized on that tool (CMP_22CM).The main improvement of the new process is the improved profile shape. The “hump” in the edge zone is gone, which allows to adjust the EP without either a) overpolish the outer edge (AA completely erased) or b) underpolish the inner edge (Nitride residual) – both killer defects.

New pad type overpolish: Process Window experiment D A I CM

Delta Nitride target

This process window experiment proves that the Post Oxide thick-proves that the Post Oxide thick-ness and Nitride thickness (Delta Nitride target of 40A) correlate very well with the overpolish time (PPID t 10)step 10).

The new process has a lower Oxide and Nitride removal rate, so the OP polish time has to be adjusted (frompolish time has to be adjusted (from 10 sec. with POR to 40 sec. with new process)

Zone Pressure adjustments:Semi-automatic ZP calculator D A I CM

Ran three factorial DoE for zone pressures:CAP OAP EAP i d1100

1300

1500

2

Oneway Analysis of WIW_range_12 By Split

•CAP, OAP, EAP were varied

•RAP stayed constant as reference

Automation group created a model which300

500

700

900

1100

WIW

_ran

ge_1

Automation group created a model which took into account the zone pressures and thickness variation between the zones.The model was automated and new ZP

100

300

NEW OL D

Split

Missin g Rows 1 The model was automated and new ZP values were calculated every hour.Process technicians performed ZP adjustments manually at the start of a every

g

NEWOLD

Level152.2 275

241.3 5

Minimum265.8 08381.73

10%308.2 875

440.571

25%370.5525517.9033

Median443.6 9

686.774

75%543.5 888833.2 88

90%1540.73

1205 .733

Maximu m

Quantiles

Means and Std Deviations adjustments manually at the start of a every lot.

Next steps to repeat the DoE with the new

NEWOLD

Level1443349

Number397.750567.634

Mean142.7 19175.0 06

Std Dev3.757 19.367 9

Std Err Mean390.38549.21

Lower 95%405.12586.06

Upper 95%

Improvements: Remark:improved process and fully automate the methodology once the capital freeze is lifted.

From: 568ATo: 398AΔ: 170A

This was performed with the old pad process. Results don’tinclude new XY pad process.

“Just Do It” Improvements D A I CM

1) ZP calculator through JMP (reduce Oxide range)

- Same calculator as semi-automatic web based one- Same calculator as semi-automatic web based one

- Can’t be used by technicians in Fab (only for Engineering use)

- Temporary solution, now back-up for Web calculator

2) New ramp process (eliminate KV rings – Litho holds)

- Process matches QR3 process (benchmark) and should minimize KV rings

- Showed slight uniformity improvements- Showed slight uniformity improvements

- Currently running pilot

3) New wafer maps (standardize measurements points between all parts)

- Develop similar maps for all products

- Points evenly spaced between all 4 zones (center, ripple, outer, edge)

- Only one point at 95mm radius- Only one point at 95mm radius

- Affects mainly CD80 products

Process Mapping:Detailed AA CMP process flow D A I CM

Improvement plan: Summary and “go forward” D A I CM

Added following improve-ments (easy fixes):- Improved head rebuild

(start date pulled in –see Control Phase)

- Ertalyre retaining ring(experiment failed)

Improve Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM

Summary:Ran several DOE’s to

Tools/methodologies used:Screening DOE- Ran several DOE s to

- Determine best pad type- Optimize polish parameters

- Screening DOE- Quantifying DOE- Optimizing DOE

- Analyze zone pressures- New pad type and polish parameters

improved 12 pt OxRg by 33%

- Verify critical Xs- Regression Analysis Y=F(X)=f(x)

improved 12-pt. OxRg by 33% - Created model for influence of zone

pressures on uniformity

- Automation- Pilot Trials- Process Flow Diagram

- Used model to created a semi-automated calculator to update zone pressures on a regular basis

- Process Flow Diagram- Standardization

p g- Remapped Process Flow

(added steps for ZP adjustments)

Capability analysis:Before and after D A I CM

Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX Process Capability of Range

Sep-08 dataMay-08 data

USL

LSL *Target *USL 320Sample Mean 585.894Sample N 305

Process Data



WithinOverall


USL

LSL *Target *USL 320Sample Mean 356.58Sample N 130

Process Data



WithinOverall

Process Capability of Range

pStDev (Within) 108.412StDev (O v erall) 174.87

Z.USL -2.45C pk -0.82

Z.Bench -1.52Z.LSL *Z.USL -1.52Ppk -0.51C pm *


pStDev (Within) 83.6199StDev (O v erall) 110.688

Z.USL -0.44C pk -0.15

Z.Bench -0.33Z.LSL *Z.USL -0.33Ppk -0.11C pm *


12001050900750600450300

% < LSL *% > USL 98.03% Total 98.03




700600500400300200100

% < LSL *% > USL 51.54% Total 51.54




% achieving goal:> 48% (and improving)

% achieving goal:< 2%

Remark:320A is the goal for mean value and not the Upper Spec Limit.As there is no spec limit existing we used the goal for the capability calculation.

Primary Metric:Film Thickness Improvement D A I CM

Start of Control Phase

C ff f

700

800

900

2

Combined effect of:- New XY process- Gen II head preference- ZP calculator

I d h d b ild

500

600

700

_ran

ge_1

2 - Improved head rebuild- “Just Do It” improvements

300

400WIW

_

GOAL: 320ATwo weeks at goal:Average WIW range: 317A

100

200

8-32

8-33

8-34

8-35

8-36

8-37

8-38

8-39

8-40

8-41

8-42

8-43

8-44

8-45

8-46

8-47

8-48

8-49

8-50

8-51

8-52

8-53

Average WIW range: 317A

FW08

FW08

FW08

FW08

FW08

FW08

FW08

FW08

FW

08FW

08FW

08F

W08

FW08

FW08

FW

08FW

08FW

08FW

08FW

08FW

08FW

08FW

08

FW

Control PlanD A I CM

Transition PlanD A I CM

Control Phase Summary & LSS Tools used D A I CM

Summary:Capability improved from 2% (May

Tools/methodologies used:Control Plan- Capability improved from 2% (May-

08) to > 48% (Sep-8)(320A is a goal not a spec limit)R h d l (O R 320A) i

- Control Plan- Poka-Yoke- SPM

- Reached goal (OxRg < 320A) in FW52/53(w/o NOVA or Run-2-Run control)

- SPC- OCAP

- Added head rebuild improvements- Created the following documents:

Control Plan (see Appendix)

- Transition Plan- Final Report

- Control Plan (see Appendix)- Transition Plan (see Appendix)- Final Reportp

- Closed Project

Project Summary:Big wins D A I CM

• Achieved goal of AA Post Oxide within Wafer Range of 320A or less

Yi ld i t f 2 3%• Yield improvement of 2.3%• Annual financial return of $ 4.1M• Improved performance to target from less than 2% to greater than 48%Improved performance to target from less than 2% to greater than 48%• Model that helps to adjust zone air pressure on a continuous basis• Optimized process with a favorable thickness profile• Methodology to select tools with better capability automatically• Better understanding of pad type and process conditions

M t d t ll ti f f fil• More accurate data collection for wafer profile• Short project time of less than 5 months (means less downtime for CMP production)

• Future NOVA implementation will drastically reduce AA CMP CTp y• Future Run-2-Run control will allow CMP technicians to focus on Mfg issues

Next Steps:Future Improvement D A I CM

1) Upgrade Generation I toolset to Generation II head type2) Fully qualify the new XY pad process (incl. new ramp)

3) Perform Zone Pressure DOE with new pad type and create semi-automatic Zone Pressure web calculator for new process (add to CMP Intra net)Zone Pressure web calculator for new process (add to CMP Intra-net)

4) Fully automate Zone Pressure control (Run-2-Run control)• Total “hands-off” operation for CMP Mfg and CMP technicians

5) Install and set-up Nova in-situ film thickness measurement system• Faster feed back if uniformity is OOC

Mi i i b f l t / f d t OOC diti• Minimize number of lots/wafers exposed to OOC condition(automatic adjustments while lots is running)

• Decrease cycle time by “eliminating” pre and post film thickness measurements in a separate stepin a separate step

AA TEOS CMPBefore, After & Future D A I CM

Any

uestions?

Th kThank you

The World’s LeadingCreative Memory CompanyCreative Memory Company

APPENDIX(tool summary & signatures, glossary)

DMAIC Tool Summary

DEFINE Tollgate

MEASURE Tollgate

ANALYZE Tollgate

IMPROVE Tollgate

CONTROL Tollgate

Glossary

6S Six Sigma

A Angstrom (10‐10m)

AA Active Area

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ASP Average Selling Priceg g

BB Black Belt

BMG Breakthrough Management Group (BMGI ‐ Copyright BMGI. All rights reserved

C&E Cause & Effect

CAP Center Air Pressure

CMP Chemical Mechanical PolishingCMP Chemical Mechanical Polishing

CMP_XX CMP tools XX

CoO Cost of Ownership

Cpk Process CapabilityCpk Process Capability

CS Carrier Speed

CT Cycle time

Glossary

DMAIC Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control

DOE Design of Experiment

EAP Edge Air Pressure

EBIT Earnings Before Interest and Tax(es)

EE Equipment EngineeringEE Equipment Engineering

EP Endpoint

Fab Chip plant

FILMS Thin Film Deposition

GB Green Belt

G I / G II G ti I / IIGen I / Gen II Generation I / II

L6S Lean Six Sigma (same as LSS)

LSL Lower Spec Limit

LSS Lean Six Sigma

Glossary

MBB Master Black Belt

Mfg Manufacturing

MTY Metrology

OAP Outer Air Pressure

OCAP Out of Control Action PlanOCAP Out of Control Action Plan

OOC Out of Control

OP Overpolish

OxRg Oxide RangeOxRg Oxide Range

OxRg(12) 12 point Oxide Range (same as OxRg)

OxRgMean Mean Oxide Range (same as OxRg)

PCP Polishing Chamber Pressure

PE Process Engineering

PI Process Integration

POR Process of Record

Glossary

QNA Qimonda North America

QR2 Qimonda Richmond 200mm Plant

QR3 Qimonda Richmond 300mm Plant

R2R Run‐2‐Run

RAP Ripple Air PressureRAP Ripple Air Pressure

RCA Root Cause Analysis

ROCE Return On Capital Employed

ROI Return of InvestmentROI Return of Investment

RTD Real Time Dispatch

SF Slurry Flow

SOP Standard Operating Procedure

SPC Statistical Process Control

SPM Statistical Process Monitoring

StDev Standard Deviation

Glossary

T80 Technology 80nm

TEOS Tetraethylorthosilicate

TS Table Speed

USL Upper Spec Limit

VOC Voice of Customer

WETS Wet Clean and Etch

WIW (range) Within Wafer (range) (same as OxRg)WIW (range) Within Wafer (range) (same as OxRg)

WSPW Wafer Starts Per Week

YB Yellow Belt

YBS3 Final Wafer Yield

ZP Zone Pressure

qna l6 s project aa cmp oxide range reduction (oct 08)

Documents