LSS BB certification project

1. Lean Six Sigma Project:
CMP Oxide Film Thickness
Uniformity Improvement
y p
FINAL REPORT
October 2008
Norbert Gloser
Qimonda Operational Excellence
Qimonda confidential

2. Contents
D M A I C
1) Introduction to CMP Basics
2) DMAIC Phase Summary
) y
• Define Phase
• Measure Phase
• Analyze Ph
A l Phase
• Improve Phase
• Control Phase
3) Project Summary
4) Appendix
• DMAIC Tool Summary
• Tollgate Approvals
• Control Plan
• Transition Plan
• Glossary

3. CMP Basic 1:
What is CMP? D M A I C
Functional principle of CMP
The process uses an abrasive and
corrosive slurry in conjunction with a
polishing pad.
Pad and wafer are pressed together by a
dynamic 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, g
wafer flat or planar.

4. CMP Basic 2: How does the
4-Zone Polishing Head work? D M A I C
• Each Polishing Head has 4 zones to control Uniformity through varying air pressures:
– 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.

5. DMAIC Methodology
D M A I C
DEFINE: P j t scope, purpose and customer requirements
Project d t i t
MEASURE: Baseline of underlying p
S y g process
ANALYZE: Collect data for trend, root causes, key input drivers
IMPROVE: Current process by improving input variation (DOE)
CONTROL: Inputs discovered in previous steps

6. CMP Oxide Film Thickness
Uniformity Improvement D M A I C
Business Case: Opportunity:
y
The non-uniformity of the a CMP Oxide process contributes Qimonda not satisfied with 80nm technology yield from QR2.
extensively to the yield loss at the Qimonda Richmond 200mm Opportunity exists to improve QR2 80nm yield by improving
Plant (QR2). uniformity in the AA module.
The device yield loss (non-functional chips) is 2.3%. The CMP AA Oxide process is a main contributor to the these yield
The reduction of CMP non-uniformity at this step will results in detractors.
$4.1 Mio. Savings per year.
$4 1 Mi S i
Goal: Scope:
Reduce AA Post Oxide within wafer range (lot average) from 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 Name
6S BB Norbert Gloser
QR2 CMP PE Mark Collins
QR2 CMP PE Kam Hettiaratchi
QR3 CMP PE Andreas Fischer
QR2 CMP EE Nishant Chadha
PI Han Park

7. Project Selection
VOC and financial return D M A I C
ROCE
EBIT TAX Capital
employed
Revenue Cost
ASP Volume
TtM Prod. Qual. Fab WSPW
Financial return:
Output - Approx. 4.1 Mio revenue per year
Assumptions:
A ti
R&D time - increase in YBS3 of 2.3%
CT Fab Yield Wafer Yield
line (additional 11 512MB chips per wafer)
- ASP of $1.65/chip
AA divots - 5000 WSPW
- Yield improvement on all
CMP AA
80nm products
uniformity

8. Project Definition
D M A I C
• Problem Statement: • Metrics:
• What: Yield loss due to high AA Post • Primary Metric:
Oxide within Wafer Range • AA Post Oxide within Wafer Range
• Where: CMP AA TEOS in QR2 • Secondary Metrics:
• When: Since QR2 T80 start up
start-up • Yield
• Problem indicator: Yield loss, Physical • Consequential Metrics:
Failure Analysis, QR3 benchmark results
• Cycle Time, Cost of Ownership (
y , p (CoO)
)
• Financial Metric: • Objective Statement:
• Yield gain: 2.3% • Currently: OxRgMean = 544A
• Chi output: 55 000 (
Chip t t 55,000 (per week) k) • E titl
Entitlement: O R Mean = 230A
t OxRg
(Est. depending on weekly wafer starts (QR3 benchmark)
and product mix) • Goal: OxRgMean = 320A
• T t l ROI: $4 1 Mi (
Total ROI $4.1 Mio. (per year) ) (70% of gap t b
f to benchmark)
h k)
(Est. depending on chip price)

9. Project Team
D M A I C

10. Define Phase Summary
& LSS Tools used D M A I C
Summary: Tools/methodologies used:
- Used VOC to select project - Voice of customer (VOC)
- Defined problem statement
- Defined AA Post Oxide within Wafer
Rang as primary metric
- Defined secondary and
consequential 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 y
$ year
- Selected team members

11. Process Map:
Macro Map D M A I C

12. Bench Marking and
Process Capability D M A I C
QR2 QR3 (benchmark)
OXRG mean Mean(Range(Post Ox))
70% of gap to QR3 performance
1000 1000
900 900
=> target: 320A
g
800 800
700 700
Remark:
320A is the goal for mean value and not the Upper Spec Limit.
600 600
As there is no spec limit existing we used the goal for the capability calculation.
500 500
400 400 Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX
300 300
200 200 USL
100 100 P rocess D ata Within
0 0 LS L * Ov erall
Target *
USL 320 P otential (Within) C apability
Quantiles Quantiles
S ample M ean 585.894 Z.Bench -2.45
100.0% maximum 864.61 100.0% maximum 376.17 S ample N 305 Z.LS L *
99.5% 864.61 99.5% 376.17 S tD ev (Within) 108.412 Z.U S L -2.45
97.5% 790.87 97.5% 362.17 S tD ev (O v erall) 174.87 C pk -0.82
90.0% 698.74 90.0% 302.03 O v erall C apability
75.0% quartile 602.62 75.0% quartile 275.67 Z.Bench -1.52
50.0% median 531.53 50.0% median 221.50 Less than Z.LS L *
25.0% quartile 457.22 25.0% quartile 199.83 2% Z.U S L -1.52
P pk -0.51
10.0% 410.36 10.0% 161.78 of lots meet C pm *
2.5% 376.45 2.5% 124.57
320A target
0.5% 361.14 0.5% 96.17
0.0% minimum 361.14 0.0% minimum 96.17
Moments Moments
Mean 543.76823 Mean 230.39178 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200
Std Dev 108.65107 Std Dev 54.104032 O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance
Std Err Mean 10.087998 Std Err Mean 6.4209673 % < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L *
upper 95% Mean 563.75062 upper 95% Mean 243.198 % > U S L 98.03 % > U S L 99.29 % > U S L 93.58
lower 95% Mean 523.78585 lower 95% Mean 217.58557 % Total 98.03 % Total 99.29 % Total 93.58
May-08 data
N 116 N 71

13. C
(non)unifor
I
A A C MP
mity
A
C&E Diagram - AA CMP Uniformity Improvement
M
Personnel
Tool capability
Manual ops
PMs
D
Personnel
l
Machines
e
m fg d ad
st M at e He
ju r
Ad pe pe
o ns ty
P
s io
nt E d at
P rat e br e
Warm-up wfrs
ID n e er r ali l SW on
PP t io du
Product type
op m bb C i
Consum lifetime
c
le D C he rs
Head rebuild
se Nu Sc ve e
Incoming
p
Process Control
Rework
ty
Automation
l
Conditioner
oo
T
Procedures
Head
y
Slurry
ta
PPID
Pad
da 2R
Methods
H
Material
M t i l
T re R
u EP su E
r ib ID P ea
l FM
ist ST H
D tr o ti
di i
br M on
e D A a um on T
v n em A X at C s
it oc C e
roo t io io M
LO ld im D tion
Zo
n
G t e SE oo L c ta A
tr a an T
en OC
P
P
Fil R e
Sp ts
Fishbone Diagram:
s R r
op i ie
rr le
T n pe Lim Ca
y PM ab ry
b T T u r p-
Su OP Slm
Uniformity = F(X)
Ex-situ
a m
R Ra
Prorities
In-situ
Product
al
Workload
Measurements
n
tio
Env ironment
t
a
Qual
ov nc
N Fu )
t ld
en (Y
ie
ri
c
n nm
m et
t io ig m Y mp
la Al r a LY
re Pa P ra
or n
C od t io
Pr ca
c ica
to Lo EP Le
M
s FM
te A
si
of
f A
A
# KL L s
zy ol
n to
ue ing of
eq pl
Fr m
#
Sa

14. Score
Zo
ne
Pr
es
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
su
re
s
H Nov
ea
d a
ty
pe
R
G 2R
ro
o
R ve
H et s
Define X’s
ea . R
d in
C re g
on bu
di i
tio ld
ni
R
a ng
R mp
am -
p- up
do
w
n
ST
I E
Pareto C&E Matrix:
Ta D E P
bl PT
C eS H
ar
rie pe
r S ed
pe
C ed
on
tr
ol Top
Li
m
Lo its
ca
Potential X
tio
n
C&E ranking
Su
b
PC
O P
C
A
P
SE s
LO
A X
Sl A H
ur D
D
ry P
C Fl
ow
on
su
m Ty
p
C life e
al tim
ib e
r
M
D ati
is
tr ons
C ib u
o n t io
di n
t io
ne
A
O r
th
er
I
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20 00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
55.00%
60.00%
70.00%
75.00%
80.00%
85.00%
90.00%
95.00%
20.00%
65 00%
65.00%
100.00%
% cum
C

15. Measure Phase Summary
& LSS Tools used D M A I C
Summary: Tools/methodologies used:
- Mapped material flow through AA - Process Flow Diagram
TEOS CMP area - Data Collection
- Collected data for current process - Capability Analysis
and b
d benchmark
h k
- Benchmarking
- Goal is 70% gap: 320A
- C&E Fishbone
- Current capability is less than 2%
- C&E Matrix
- Used 6M Fishbone Diagram to
- Pareto Diagram
identify inputs to uniformity/range
- Potential X’s
Xs
- Surveyed CMP experts to create
C&E matrix
- Identified TOP5 inputs using Pareto
p g
Diagram

16. TOP 5 inputs &
proposed changes X=f(x) D M A I C
C&E 1st level Root Capital
Score Proposed Changes Resources
Category Category Cause required
Determine preferable ZP
Method Recipe Zone Pressures 38 adjustments to minimize CMP CMP PE / R2R NO
non-uniformity
Analyze process capability
Machine Tool capability Head type 36 CMP PE NO
between Gen I and Gen II tools
Evaluate usage of Nova in-situ
In-situ Nova / CMP PE /
Meaurement Nova 36 film thickness measurment tools YES
Measurements CMP EE
on Ebara FREX 200 toolsets
Develop methodology to
IT / Eb
Ebara / CMP
automatically adjust tool para-
Method Automation Run-2-Run 33 PE / CMP EE / YES
meters to minimize CMP non-
R2R
uniformity
Evaluate X-Y grooved p used
g pad
Material
M t i l Pad
P d Grooves
G 32 CMP PE NO
at QR3

17. Radial Profiles:
12-pt. vs. 85-pt. D M A I C
Post Oxide - Radial Profiles
3300
Local
3200
Underpolish
3100
3000
Post Oxide thickness [A]
2900
Center Airbag Ripple Airbag Outer Airbag Edge Airbag Both defects
2800
“Yield Killers”
“Yi ld Kill ”
2700
2600
2500
2400 85-pt. 12-pt. thickness measurement are used Local
12-pt.
p
in production for capacity reasons
reasons. Overpolish
2300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Radius [mm]

18. Tool capability Improvement:
Head style D M A I C
Oneway Analysis of WIW OXRG By Head
900 Observation:
800 Gen I head (CMP 22) has in average a 70A
(CMP_22)
700 higher range than Gen II head (CMP_23/26)
WIW OXRG
600
500
Conclusion:
Two options for improvement:
W
400
1. Use only Gen II tools and use Gen I only
300
as backup only when WIP is high
200 (tool dedication per dispatch software
GEN I GEN II Each Pair and per SOP).
Student's t
0.05
2. Upgrade CMP_22 to Gen II head
Head
capability (approx $140K).
Missing Rows 9 (To be implemented after capital
Quantiles freeze lifted).
Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum
GEN I 256.492 332.5238 383.1553 435.597 488.5748 589.5398 845.6733 Improvements:
GEN II 195.194 265.6953 306.2185 366.73 433.315 539.445 921.5
From: 454A
Means and Std Deviations
To: 386A
Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95%
Δ: 68A
GEN I 200 454.292 117.877 8.3352 437.86 470.73
GEN II 304 385.894 119.490 6.8532 372.41 399.38

19. Analysis Phase Summary
& LSS Tools used D M A I C
Summary: Tools/methodologies used:
- Identified TOP5 critical inputs (X) - ID critical X’s
Xs
and performed root cause analysis - Root Cause Analysis
(RCA) to identify input factors (x)
- DOE Planning
- A l i was b i f DOE
Analysis basis for DOEs
- Data Collection
- Performed 85-pt. measurement to
- Graphical Analysis
identify the “true” profile of Oxide
- ANOVA
- Oxide Range driven by zone 4 only
- Hypothesis Testing
- Compared CMP tools with old GEN I
head to ones with new GEN II head - Quick Improvements
=> GEN II has lower OxRg
- Implemented to use GEN I tools as
“back-up only” (EASY WIN)

20. New pad type DOE:
Experimental Plan D M A I C
Practical Problem Statement: Factors & Levels of interest:
- The current 12 pt WIW range is 375A
12-pt. - Pad (POR, XY groove)
(POR XY-groove)
(4-week average) and therefore above our - Slurry flow (100 ml/min, 250 ml/min)
project target of 320A (primary effect)
- Table Speed (50 rpm, 120 rpm)
- The current 13-pt. WIW range of larger than
p g g
- C i S
Carrier Speed (50 rpm, 120 rpm)
d )
900A is also not acceptable (secondary effect)
Experimental Objective Statement: Experiment & Sample Size
- The objective of this experiment/DOE is to find - 2K Factorial Design
a new process (consumable and process - 4 factors
settings) to achieve results comparable to the
g ) p
- N center points, bl ki or replicas
No t i t blocking li
QR3 80nm Ebara process:
- 16 runs
- 12-pt. WIW range < 320A
- Run DOE on CMP_23CM (Gen II head)
- 13-pt. WIW range < 600A

21. New pad type:
DOE Optimizer & Tolerance D M A I C
The sweet spot is at:
- TS: 50rpm
- CS: 51rpm
(1rpm offset to TS required)
- SF: 100ml/min
Results: WIW range of 285A
Settings below cause defectivity,
endpoint issues & slow p
p process speeds
p
10% deviation from those values still
allows to achieve target of 320A

22. New pad type:
Process Optimization D M A I C
Estimated Effects and Coefficients for EP (coded units)
Term Effect Coef SE Coef T P Estimated Coefficients for Oxrg12 using data in
uncoded units
Constant 118.5 1.8 65.5 0.000
Pad 13.7 6.8 1.8 3.7 0.005 Term Coef
TS -42.2 -21.1 1.8 -11.5 0.000 Constant -141
CS -16.6 -8.3 1.8 -4.5 0.001 Pad -120
SF 11.3 5.7 1.8 3.1 0.012 TS 1.6
CS 4.5
45
SF 2.7
R-Sq = 95.52%
Pad*TS 1.8
CS*SF -0.02
Conclusions:
All main factors are significant. Formula:
Two 2-way interactions are significant: Pad*TS & CS*SF OxRg(12) = -141 - 120*Pad + 1.6*TS + 4.5*CS +
The optimum process settings are: 2.7*SF + 1.8*Pad*TS - 0.02*CS*SF
XY-grooved pad Table Speed: 50rpm
with (POR = -1, XY = +1)
Carrier Speed: 51rpm Slurry Flow: 100ml/min
Slurry flow below 100ml/min causes microscratches.
y Physical meaning:
The O id
Th Oxide range decreases with use of XY pad and
d ith f d d
Per CMP experienced TS and CS are matched with 1rpm decreasing slurry flow, carrier speed and table speed until
off-set. the process speed is to slow to be manufacturable.

23. New pad type split lots:
Radial Profiles and Range D M A I C
Radial Profiles: OLD vs. NEW Oneway Analysis of Range12 By Split1
3300
1100
CAP RAP OAP 1000
3200
900
800
3100
Range12
700
3000 600
500
2900 400
PostOx [A]
300
2800 200
POR XY
2700
Split1
Quantiles
2600
Level Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximum
POR 315.43 366.895 429.2275 501.785 709.0125 824.48 1005.18
2500
OLD OLD: NEW: XY 214.08 283.012 321.0725 387.845 412.9775 488.67 613.05
12-pt. range: 533A 12-pt. range: 385A
NEW max. range: 794A max. range: 504A Means and Std Deviations
2400
Level Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95%
EAP POR 94 563.400 174.446 17.993 527.67 599.13
2300 XY 52 378.785 79.771 11.062 356.58 400.99
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Radius [mm]
Improvements: 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
From: 563A pressures were not optimized on that tool (CMP 22CM)
(CMP_22CM).
To: 378A The main improvement of the new process is the improved profile shape. The “hump” in the
Δ: 185A 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.

24. New pad type overpolish:
Process Window experiment D M A I C
Delta Nitride target
This process window experiment
proves that the Post Oxide thick-
ness and Nitride thickness (Delta
Nitride target of 40A) correlate very
well with the overpolish time (PPID
step 10).
t 10)
The new process has a lower Oxide
and Nitride removal rate, so the OP
polish time has to be adjusted (from
10 sec. with POR to 40 sec. with
new process)

25. Zone Pressure adjustments:
Semi-automatic ZP calculator D M A I C
Oneway Analysis of WIW_range_ 12 By Split
1500
1300 Ran three factorial DoE for zone pressures:
WI W_range_1 2
1100
•CAP OAP EAP were varied
CAP, OAP, i d
900
700 •RAP stayed constant as reference
500
300
Automation group created a model which
100
NEW OL D took into account the zone pressures and
Split thickness variation between the zones.
Missin g Rows 1
The model was automated and new ZP
Quantiles
Lev el Minimum 10% 25% Median 75% 90% Maximu m values were calculated every hour.
NEW 152.2 275 265.8 08 308.2 875 370.5525 443.6 9 543.5 888 1540.73
OLD 241.3 5 381.73 440.571 517.9033 686.774 833.2 88 1205 .733 Process technicians performed ZP
Means and Std Deviations
adjustments manually at the start of a every
Lev el Number Mean Std Dev Std Err Mean Lower 95% Upper 95%
NEW 1443 397.750 142.7 19 3.757 1 390.38 405.12 lot.
OLD 349 567.634 175.0 06 9.367 9 549.21 586.06
Improvements: Remark: Next steps to repeat the DoE with the new
From: 568A This was performed with the improved process and fully automate the
To: 398A old pad process. Results don’t methodology once the capital freeze is lifted.
Δ: 170A include new XY pad process.

26. “Just Do It” Improvements
D M A I C
1) ZP calculator through JMP (reduce Oxide range)
- 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
- 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
- Affects mainly CD80 products

27. Process Mapping:
Detailed AA CMP process flow D M A I C

28. Improvement plan:
Summary and “go forward” D M A I C
Added following improve-
ments (easy fixes):
- Improved head rebuild
(start date pulled in –
see Control Phase)
- Ertalyre retaining ring
(experiment failed)

29. Improve Phase Summary
& LSS Tools used D M A I C
Summary: Tools/methodologies used:
- Ran several DOE’s to
DOE s - Screening DOE
- Determine best pad type - Quantifying DOE
- Optimize polish parameters - Optimizing DOE
- Analyze zone pressures - Verify critical Xs
- New pad type and polish parameters - Regression Analysis Y=F(X)=f(x)
improved 12 pt OxRg by 33%
12-pt. - Automation
- Created model for influence of zone - Pilot Trials
pressures on uniformity
- Process Flow Diagram
- Used model to created a semi-
- Standardization
automated calculator to update zone
p
pressures on a regular basis
g
- Remapped Process Flow
(added steps for ZP adjustments)

30. Capability analysis:
Before and after D M A I C
May-08 data Sep-08 data
Process Capability of OXRG P7RSLTX Process Capability of Range
USL USL
P rocess D ata Within P rocess D ata Within
LS L * Overall LS L * Overall
Target * Target *
USL 320 P otential (Within) C apability USL 320 P otential (Within) C apability
S ample M ean 585.894 Z.Bench -2.45 S ample M ean 356.58 Z.Bench -0.44
S ample N
p 305 Z.LS L * S ample N
p 130 Z.LS L *
S tDev (Within) 108.412 Z.U S L -2.45 S tDev (Within) 83.6199 Z.U S L -0.44
S tDev (O v erall) 174.87 C pk -0.82 S tDev (O v erall) 110.688 C pk -0.15
O v erall C apability O v erall C apability
Z.Bench -1.52 Z.Bench -0.33
Z.LS L * Z.LS L *
Z.U S L -1.52 Z.U S L -0.33
P pk -0.51 P pk -0.11
C pm * C pm *
300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance O bserv ed P erformance E xp. Within P erformance E xp. O v erall P erformance
% < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L * % < LS L *
% > U S L 98.03 % > U S L 99.29 % > U S L 93.58 % > U S L 51.54 % > U S L 66.91 % > U S L 62.95
% Total 98.03 % Total 99.29 % Total 93.58 % Total 51.54 % Total 66.91 % Total 62.95
% achieving goal: % achieving goal:
< 2% > 48% (and improving)
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.

31. Primary Metric:
Film Thickness Improvement D M A I C
Start of Control Phase
900 Combined effect of:
C ff f
- New XY process
800 - Gen II head preference
- ZP calculator
700
_range_12
2
-IImproved h d rebuild
d head b ild
- “Just Do It” improvements
600
500
WIW_
400
GOAL: 320A
300 Two weeks at goal:
Average WIW range: 317A
200
100
8-32
8-33
8-34
8-35
8-36
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
8-37
8-53
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW08
FW

32. Control Plan
D M A I C

33. Transition Plan
D M A I C

34. Control Phase Summary
& LSS Tools used D M A I C
Summary: Tools/methodologies used:
- Capability improved from 2% (May
(May- - Control Plan
08) to > 48% (Sep-8) - Poka-Yoke
(320A is a goal not a spec limit)
- SPM
- R
Reached goal (O R < 320A) i
h d l (OxRg in
- SPC
FW52/53
(w/o NOVA or Run-2-Run control) - OCAP
- Added head rebuild improvements - Transition Plan
- Created the following documents: - Final Report
- Control Plan (see Appendix)
- Transition Plan (see Appendix)
- Final Report
p
- Closed Project

35. Project Summary:
Big wins D M A I C
• Achieved goal of AA Post Oxide within Wafer Range of 320A or less
• Yi ld i
Yield improvement of 2.3%
t f 2 3%
• Annual financial return of $ 4.1M
• 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
More accurate data collection f wafer profile
t d t ll ti for f fil
• Short project time of less than 5 months (means less downtime for CMP production)
• Future NOVA implementation will drastically reduce AA CMP CT
p y
• Future Run-2-Run control will allow CMP technicians to focus on Mfg issues

36. Next Steps:
Future Improvement D M A I C
1) Upgrade Generation I toolset to Generation II head type
2) 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)
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
• Minimize
Mi i i number of l t / f
b f lots/wafers exposed t OOC condition
d to diti
(automatic adjustments while lots is running)
• Decrease cycle time by “eliminating” pre and post film thickness measurements
in a separate step

37. AA TEOS CMP
Before, After & Future D M A I C

38. Any
uestions?

39. Thank
Th k you
The World’s Leading
Creative Memory Company

40. APPENDIX
(tool summary & signatures, glossary)

41. DMAIC Tool Summary

42. DEFINE Tollgate

43. MEASURE Tollgate

44. ANALYZE Tollgate

45. IMPROVE Tollgate

46. CONTROL Tollgate

47. Glossary
6S Six Sigma
A Angstrom (10‐10m)
AA Active Area
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ASP g g
Average Selling Price
BB Black Belt
BMG Breakthrough Management Group (BMGI ‐ Copyright BMGI. All rights reserved
C&E Cause & Effect
CAP Center Air Pressure
CMP Chemical Mechanical Polishing
Chemical Mechanical Polishing
CMP_XX CMP tools XX
CoO Cost of Ownership
Cpk Process Capability
Process Capability
CS Carrier Speed
CT Cycle time

48. Glossary
DMAIC Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control
DOE Design of Experiment
EAP Edge Air Pressure
EBIT Earnings Before Interest and Tax(es)
EE Equipment Engineering
Equipment Engineering
EP Endpoint
Fab Chip plant
FILMS Thin Film Deposition
GB Green Belt
Gen I / Gen II
G I / G II Generation I / II
G ti I / II
L6S Lean Six Sigma (same as LSS)
LSL Lower Spec Limit
LSS Lean Six Sigma

49. Glossary
MBB Master Black Belt
Mfg Manufacturing
MTY Metrology
OAP Outer Air Pressure
OCAP Out of Control Action Plan
Out of Control Action Plan
OOC Out of Control
OP Overpolish
OxRg Oxide Range
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

50. Glossary
QNA Qimonda North America
QR2 Qimonda Richmond 200mm Plant
QR3 Qimonda Richmond 300mm Plant
R2R Run‐2‐Run
RAP Ripple Air Pressure
Ripple Air Pressure
RCA Root Cause Analysis
ROCE Return On Capital Employed
ROI Return of Investment
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

51. Glossary
T80 Technology 80nm
TEOS Tetraethylorthosilicate
TS Table Speed
USL Upper Spec Limit
VOC Voice of Customer
WETS Wet Clean and Etch
WIW (range)
WIW (range) Within Wafer (range)
Within Wafer (range) (same as OxRg)
(same as OxRg)
WSPW Wafer Starts Per Week
YB Yellow Belt
YBS3 Final Wafer Yield
ZP Zone Pressure