“GANTT CHARTS FOR PRODUCTION FLOW” FRAMEWORK

Caterina Genua
Silvestro Giuffrida
Salvatore Rinaudo

ST Microelectronics
Stradale Primosole, 50
95121 Catania (Italy)

Abstract: In the highly competitive semiconductor industry, shop floor controls have
recently become fundamental for production controllers and industrial engineers. Despite
the emphasis put on SFS techniques, the impact on the actual operations of the fab may
not reflect controllers’ expectations. A framework has been developed which provides
them with means of analyzing the production flow, through statistical analysis of
equipment, operators and flow linearity parameters, and through data collection for
historical comparisons between simulated and real activity of the fab, which can be
helpful for documenting the improvements on manufacturing performance offered by the
use of shop floor controls. Copyright © 2006 IFAC

Keywords: Shop-floor, scheduling, manufacturing processes, control system design,

simulators, production, equipment, efficiency.

1. INTRODUCTION
In the past few decades shop-floor scheduling has
been recognized as an important tool in improving
manufacturing performance. Simulating the activity
of the fab through a mathematical model allows
industrial engineers and production controllers to
perform capacity, what-if analysis and planning and
to offer dispatching indications to people working on
the shop floor.
The semiconductor manufacturing cycle is one of the
most difficult processes to model. In a wafer
fabrication environment, people have to cope with
complex reality, with randomness in yields, reworks
and resources unavailability, rapidly changing
products and technologies, reentrant flows, time
constrained operations, batching… Moreover,
traditional research does not take into account many
potentials present in real world production, e.g.
operators’ experience, motivations and
qualifications. In other words, while researchers are
still studying the effects of different control policies
and industrial engineers and production controllers
are trying to adopt sophisticated shop floor tools to
improve production performance, the impact of these
studies and control measures is not as big as
expected, and it is not uncommon to discover that
the real activity of the fab does not adhere to the
dispatching decisions in a systematic way. Even though
various knowledge-based and genetic algorithms do exist,
the inadequate performance of shop floor control tends to
represent a problem in most industrial enterprises (Sloan,
2003; Scherer, 1998).
Therefore, it is important to create solutions that help to
bridge the gap between theory and practise. An analysis
framework has been developed offering industrial
engineers and controllers the possibility to measure the
impact of the shop floor scheduling policies on the real
activity of the fab, through evaluation and monitoring of
many parameters indicating fab performance.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Literature review
Many examples of shop floor control study can be found
in different manufacturing environments. The approaches
can be differentiated according to the performance
measures to optimize (globally or locally), the control
policies (scheduling and dispatching techniques) included
in the model, the detail of the model used to reproduce the
fab activity in a simulator.

As for the semiconductor world, some authors claim
that a reduction in mean cycle time is needed to
optimize performance, others target reduction in
cycle time variance in order to minimize lateness,
thus respecting on time delivery (Lu, et al., 1994).
Critical Ratio Criterion also targets maximized on
time delivery by prioritizing lots based on their
current position, due date and remaining cycle time
(Lee and Chen, 1997; Kim, et al., 1998).
Another important criterion is line balancing, i.e.
targeting the linearity of product flow, in order to
avoid bubbles of WIP (Work in Process, total
number of wafers present in the manufacturing
processing line) to form and to equilibrate workload
in the different tools (Shen and Leachman, 2003).
Dispatching and scheduling schemas involving a
weighted average of various performance measures
have been developed (Dabbas and Fowler, 2003;
Kim, et al., 2003; Lee and Chen, 1997).
As far as the model detail is concerned, if interested
in an extensive what-if analysis, the researcher can
choose to include all the necessary details, possibly
integrating uncertainty analysis (Shen and
Leachman, 2003), while for Simulation Based Real
Time Scheduling (Kim, et al., 2003) and fast-
rescheduling flexible solutions (Liao, et al., 1996) it
is important to reduce the complexity of the model to
minimize response times.
As for other manufacturing environments, shop floor
control and throughput analysis case studies can be
found in Gupta and Sarawgi (2002), Norton (1996),
Li (2004).
2.2 Case Study Overview
The motivation and data for this paper come from the
work realized for an R&D fab and a production fab
of ST Microelectronics. “Gantt Charts for Production
Flow” framework, by collecting data related to
various metrics, by statistical reprocessing of real
values regarding fab equipment, operators and the
whole production flow, and by comparing collected
data to the results coming from a simulator of the
manufacturing process, offers the possibility to
evaluate and monitor production performance, as
well as the influence of shop floor decisions on
practice.
For data collection, the information system offered
by MESs (Manufacturing Execution Systems) is
fundamental to retrieve every kind of information
which is related to the production process (Qiu and
Zhou, 2004). In our case, the MES system is
Consilium Workstream, and the data are extracted
using Brooks APF (Advanced Productivity Family)
reporting system.
The mathematical simulator used in the previously
mentioned fabs is Brooks Autosched AP. The
simulator accepts inputs regarding fab status (WIP,
equipments, products, operations…), retrieved from
Workstream through Cobol extractors or APF reporter,
processes all these information and creates a set of reports
regarding lots and equipments status changes during the
simulation horizon. The outputs provided by the simulator
are reprocessed through a set of procedures (called STAP
toolbox) to build some reports for analysis or dispatching
purposes.
The fabs whose results will be presented in this paper are
a pilot line for technology development and a production
line, which operate 24 hours per day, with work teams
that change every 8 hours. An 8-hours period of work is
called “shift”. The only exception is represented by
Sunday night, when there is no regular personnel
operating. Three simulations per day are run, in order to
produce a set of reports about fab activity in the following
8 hours shift. Everyday these data are collected to build an
historical repository for reporting and performance
analysis purpose.
Some examples will also be given of a new performance
measure, called Dynamic XFactor, that has been
introduced recently and that has begun to be monitored
for another ST Microelectronics production fab.
3. GANTT CHARTS FOR PRODUCTION FLOW
In the following, some examples will be given of the
engineering data analysis that can be performed using our
framework, focusing on some of the performance metrics
and related aspects treated extensively by Genua, et al.
(2005).
3.1 Linearity and Global Process Flow
Moves/EOH per shift. Moves represent the number of
transactions towards the next operation (which is a step of
the process flow) performed in a shift. EOH (End of
Hand) is the number of wafers that at the end of a given
shift are in process on equipment or waiting for the next
operation, constituting the work-in-process (WIP).
Visualizing the global MOVES/EOH flow for a given
technology/product/process group in a given date range,
with a differently colored and shaded table allows to
detect immediately some operations where the linearity is
violated.
Non-linearity in the moves distribution could indicate a
period of unavailability of some resource or the
movement from batch equipment to a serial one, with the
formation of queues in front of a station or station family
which can also be encountered in the EOH distribution for
the same time bucket.
An increasing number of EOH in certain areas of the
process flow likely indicates a bottleneck station, meaning
that parts are excessively stocked in front of some
equipment.
Figure 1 shows an example of Moves linearity flow for a
particular process group and for a period of two months.

Fig. 1. Moves flow example.
In the horizontal axis the succession of shifts (8-
hours buckets) of the chosen time period is
displayed, while in the vertical axis the steps
characterizing the process flows of the technology
are displayed, ordered from the first to the last step.
The cells of the flow are shaded with different colors
(hue range [0,200]), according to the number of
moves performed during a shift at one operation. The
colors legend is shown at the top of the picture, with
higher hues (associated with lower moves per shift
values) on the left and lower hues (associated with
higher moves per shift values) on the right. Thus
cells with low-hue color in the flow indicate a non-
linearity in the process flow. Figure 2 shows an
example of EOH flow and figure 3 gives the detail of
the non-linearity detected in figure 2.
Fig. 2. EOH flow example.
Fig. 3. EOH flow detail.
Theoretical and Real Cycle time. The cycle time,
also known as “manufacturing lead time” is the time
taken by wafers in their passage from the entry to the
exit of the plant. This quantity can be computed
theoretically according to Little’s Law, which can be
applied to every system in equilibrium in which
customers arrive, spend time and depart. Assuming
that is the average arrival rate, W the average time a
customer spends in the system and L the average
number of customers in the system, L can be
computed using the formula:
L = λW
(1)
which in terms of Cycle Time, WIP and throughput
can be expressed as
WIP
Cycle _ time =
throughput
(2)
The real cycle time can be retrieved by MES computing
for each lot the difference between its start date and end
date.
lot _ cycle _ time = lot _ end _ date − lot _ start _ date
(3)
Theoretical and real cycle time data can be collected to
build statistical distribution, as shown in fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Real Cycle Time distribution.
In R&D fabrication lines used for developing new
products, reducing cycle time contributes to reduce
designing and debugging products. In production lines,
reducing cycle-time improves the responsiveness to
customers.
Reducing the cycle time reduces the work-in-process and
the capital invested on it. This tool can also be used to
detect variance in cycle-times, analyzing cycle time
distribution. Reducing variances in cycle-times, caused by
the randomness of arrivals and processing times, it is
possible to predict safely when a wafer will complete
production and exit the plant. This allows an improved
ability to meet due-dates reliably.
3.2 Equipment operation distributions and statistics
Information related to equipment operation can be
extracted from the MES system or from automation
database for long time horizons to compute statistics.
Process time. The data related to the time spent by a
station or a group of stations to perform a process on a
given lot, together with the information on the number of
wafers present in that lot, can be collected to form a
statistical distribution.
Arrival rate. The number of lots per hour that arrive in
front of a station is also of interest in the study of
equipment operation. These values are collected
periodically and statistics are built.
Down time. Performance metric that takes into account
the state transactions of a station are MTBF (Mean Time
Between Fails, time between two consecutive fails, figure
7), MTTR (Mean Time To Repair, time needed to repair a
station, figure 8), down percentage
(down%=MTTR/MTBF), availability, percentage of time
a station is available for processing (Av=100-down%).
An example can be found in fig. 9.

Fig. 7. MTBF
Fig. 8. MTTR
Fig. 9. Availability distribution
Equipment statistics are useful to investigate the
equipment operation along time, to build trends
about equipment average parameters. In this way is
possible to retrieve the equipment risk function,
detecting if the performance of equipment is
degrading or improving as time passes by. The data
collected concerning equipment activity factors can
also be very useful for the fine tuning of the fab
simulator, which could be automatically and
periodically fed with the real collected data regarding
processing time, MTBF, MTTR distribution types,
average and standard deviation values.
Equipment cycle time multiplier. The ratio between
equipment cycle time and equipment effective
processing time, the nearest to one the better the
equipment performance (Kumar, 1994). Values
related to this parameter can be computed starting
from process time, arrival rate and down time
information and used to build a trend to monitor.
3.3 Equipment operational reliability and efficiency
Station efficiency. To study the efficiency of stations
on a short-term basis, some parameters can be
analyzed daily, like PET(Process Equipment
Throughput), the time-weighted average of each
single PRT (Process Recipe Throughput) for a given
mix of recipes used, expressed in wafers/hour,
EP(Equipment Productivity), number of wafers/hour
processed by the station, EUR(%)(Equipment
Utilization Rate), percentage of time the station
spends in processing state, OEE(%)(Overall
Equipment Efficiency), given by the ratio between
EP and PET. Monthly trends are built to monitor
these performance metrics.
Station unknown time. When a station is not
available to perform its intended function, it can be
in one of the following states: DOWN (scheduled
maintenance operation, unscheduled failure repairing and
qualification), ENG (process characterization and
engineering, equipment evaluation), NO MAT (material
needed to process wafers is not available), NO OP (no
operator or support functions available, including breaks,
lunches and meetings), NO WAF (no wafers are available
to be processed, SETUP (job preparation, e.g. change of
recipe, mask, tooling, test program,… between two
regular production phases, production tests, process
control, engineering runs associated to manufacturing lot).
Based on the quantity of wafers processed in given time
shot by the station, and on the theoretical process time
coming from AP simulator events library, the percentage
of time spent by the station in a status which is not
classifiable into the known inefficiencies stated above is
called UNKNOWN TIME. It is an important performance
measure which has to be monitored and minimized.
3.4 Global and Local Production Flow
Moves per area. Moves per shift are detailed by
homogeneous areas (locations where equipments that
perform similar process operations are grouped), and
compared to the theoretical moves performed by AP
simulator and referred to the current BOH (Beginning of
Hand, wafers ready to process or in process at the
beginning of the shift). An example can be found in figure
10. It is referred to a period of about one month and a
working area of a production fab. The red line represents
the real moves trend, the blue line represents the
simulated moves trend and the green bars represent the
BOH of the working area. The data are detailed by shift
(8-hours bucket). It is quite evident that the real fab
activity tries to resemble the simulator’s dispatching
indications, obtaining a very small gap, which becomes
periodically higher, only during Sunday night’s closures.
It is interesting to analyze the progress of the gap, both in
terms of the resemblance of actual operation to simulated
activity and of model detail approximating the real fab.
Fig. 10. Shift Gap Analysis
Actual/theoretical moves correlation. A correlation graph
can be built collecting the couples (real moves performed
by the fab, moves done with the same input conditions by
AP simulator).
Moves per shift. The number of moves that the whole fab
produces in one shift can be collected on a long time basis
to build a statistical distribution like that in figure 11,
which is relative to a period of six months, excluded tails
due to closures, strikes or failures. The result is a
Gaussian distribution, centered on the average number of
moves done by the whole fab in one 8-hours shift.

Fig. 11. Moves per shift distribution
The same values can be differentiated into the
weekly 21 shifts to build a boxplot (figure 12), which
is a compact graphical representation of the
distribution of moves per shift, based on one year
data collection. Generally, a box plot, also known as
a box and whisker diagram, is a basic graphing tool
that displays centering, spread, and distribution of a
continuous data set, often used in exploratory data
analysis..
Fig. 12. Box plot for moves per weekly shifts
In our case, along the horizontal axis the 21 8-hours
shifts of the week are represented and for each shift
the corresponding box contains the parameters of the
dataset of the moves number related to that shift. For
each dataset, the average value is represented by the
blue dot in the box, the median is indicated by the
black centre line, and the first and third quartiles are
the edges of the pink area, which is known as the
inter-quartile range (IQR). The extreme values
(within 1.5 times the inter-quartile range from the
upper or lower quartile) are the ends of the lines
extending from the IQR, called “whiskers”. Points at
a greater distance from the median than 1.5 times the
IQR are plotted individually as asterisks. These
points represent potential outliers.
With this chart it is possible to have in one shot a
global vision of the moves done in a long time
horizon in the same shift of the week, eventually
detecting specific problems of that shift. In figure 7,
for instance, it is evident that the first shift of the
week suffers from reorganization of the team after
Sunday night break.
Dynamic XFactor. It is a performance metric
introduced by Johnishi, et al. (2002). It is a point
estimate of production line speed, used to quickly
identify deviation from cycle time goals. In the last
few years, researchers have focused their attention on
this new performance metric, whose functionality is
similar to that of traditional XFactor, given by:
actual cycle time shipdate − startdate
XFactor = =
theoretical cycle time load + unload + processtimes
(4)
XFactor can be calculated by process, or as a weighted
average for all the processes in the fab, and it can be
graphed vs. utilization to generate the fab’s operating
curve. The trouble with the overall cycle time XFactor is
that it is a trailing metric, i.e. it can tell how the fab has
operated in the last weeks (depending on the time horizon
chosen for the calculations), but it is not an indicator of
current performance. Dynamic XFactor, being still related
to cycle time, is a performance measure which overcomes
these difficulties, because gives a number (point estimate)
as an indicator of the fab, does not require collection of
too much theoretical data, and is forward-looking.
It is given by:
total number of wafers in WIP
DXF =
total number of wafers in process on equipment
(5)
at a given instant in time. This information can be easily
collected from the MES system.
DXF gives indications on the number of wafers that are in
transport or waiting in queue, so it measures, on a point-
in-time basis, how much of the WIP in the line is
currently being worked on, instead of sitting in queue. For
instance, if DXF drifts upward, cycle time will probably
start to increase in the future, because either there is more
WIP or WIP in the line is sitting more than it should be. It
has been demonstrated that on a long-term basis DXF
works out to be the same as the regular cycle time
Xfactor. Moreover, DXF is easier to calculate and is more
forward-looking.
To take into account the maximum capability of
equipment in production fab, the target DXF could be
given by:
total number of wafers in WIP
DXF _ tgt =
maximum number of wafers equipment is able to process
(6)
Figure 13 shows DXF values (actual and target) averaged
by shift. It is visible that every 21 shifts (Sunday night
closures) the DXF value increases.
Fig. 13. Dynamic XFactor trend example.
3.5 Operators Team Performance
Moves per team: moves per shift detailed by
homogeneous areas and by work team, averaged by
weekly buckets.
Team turns: correlation between the WIP and the Moves
(Moves done by each team divided by the WIP quantity).
Studying team weekly/monthly performance in terms Semiconductor Manufacturing, Vol. 20, No. 4, 268-
of moves and turns detailed by homogeneous areas it 277.
is advisable to detect some recurrent inefficiency and Li, J. (2004). Throughput Analysis in Automotive Paint
to eventually link it to the team itself (e.g. need Shops: A Case Study. IEEE Transactions on
training, guiding lines…) or to the area, or to some Automation Science and Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1,
logistics (e.g. transportation times from one bay to 90-98.
another). Liao, C., S. Chang, K. Pei and C. Chang (1996). Daily
Scheduling for R&D Semiconductor Fabrication.
IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing,
4. CONCLUSIONS Vol. 9, No. 4, 550-561.
Lu, S. C. H., D. Ramaswamy and P. R. Kumar (1994).
The results obtained through Gantt Charts framework
Efficient Scheduling policies to reduce Mean and
can be used for action planning and investments
Variance of Cycle Time in Semiconductor
planning, collocating into the concept of continuous
Manufacturing Plants. IEEE Transactions on
improvement, which is one of the most important Semiconductor Manufacturing, Vol. 7, No. 3, 374-
guidelines of a production enterprise. These 388.
principles are best expressed and summarized by The
Norton, N. (1996). Shop-floor control. Manufacturing
Deming Cycle (PDCA, Plan Do Check Act),
Engineer, Volume 78, 175 - 178.
which was proposed by W. Edwards Deming in the
Qiu, R. G. and M. Zhou (2004). Mighty MESs: State-of-
1950's, meaning that business processes should be the-Art and Future Manufacturing Execution
analyzed and measured to identify sources of
Systems. IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine,
variations that cause products to deviate from
Volume 11, 19 - 25, 40.
customer requirements.
Scherer, E. (1998). Shop Floor Control – A Integrative
Framework From static scheduling models towards
REFERENCES an agile operations management. IEEE International
Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,
Dabbas, R. and J. W. Fowler (2003). A new Volume 1, 451-456.
Scheduling Approach Using Combined Shen, Y. and R. Leachman (2003). Stochastic Wafer
Dispatching Criteria in Wafer Fabs. IEEE Fabrication Scheduling. IEEE Transactions on
Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, Semiconductor Manufacturing, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2-14.
Vol. 16, No. 3, 501-510. Sloan, T. W. (2003). Shop-Floor Scheduling of
Genua, C., S. Giuffrida and S. Rinaudo (2005). Semiconductor Wafer Fabs: Exploring the Influence
“Gantt Charts for Production Flow”: a of Technology, Market, and Performance Objectives.
performance analysis framework for shop floor IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing,
control evaluation and monitoring, Catania, Vol. 16, No. 2, 451-456.
ETFA 2005.
Gupta, A. K. and S. Sarawgi (2002). Shop floor
scheduling with simulation based proactive
decision support. Proceedings of the 2002
Winter Simulation Conference, Volume 2, 1897-
1902.
Johnishi, S., K. Ozawa and N. Satoh (2002),
Dynamic X-Factor Application for Optimizing
Lot control for Agile Manufacturing,
Proceedings of the 2002 International
Symposium on Semiconductor Manufacturing.
Kim, Y., S. Shim, B. Choi and H. Hwang (2003).
Simplification Methods for Accelerating
simulation-based real-time scheduling in a
Semiconductor Wafer Fabrication Facility.
IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor
Manufacturing, Vol. 16, No. 2, 290-298.
Kim, Y., J. Kim, S. Lim and H. Jun (1998). Due-
Date Based Scheduling and control Policies in a
multiproduct Semiconductor Wafer Fabrication
Facility. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor
Manufacturing, Vol. 11, No. 1, 155-164.
Kumar, P. R. (1994). Scheduling Semiconductor
Manufacturing Plants. IEEE Control Systems
Magazine, Vol. 14, No. 6, 33-40.
Lee, C. and C. Chen (1997). A dispatching scheme
involving move control and weighted due date
for Wafer Foundries. IEEE Transactions on