Industry News, Trends and Technology, and Standards Updates

In the first blog of this series, Clare Liu of Cimetrix China made the compelling case for choosing a commercial software platform for implementing the equipment side of the EDA (Equipment Data Acquisition) standards interface rather than developing the entire solution in-house. 

Whenever this “make vs. buy” decision is discussed, however, the following question inevitably arises: “If we choose a standard product for this, how can we differentiate the capabilities of our equipment and its data collection capability from our competitors?” It’s a great question which deserves a well-reasoned answer.

Platform Choice and System Architecture

Most advanced fabs use EDA to feed their on-line FDC (Fault Detection and Classification) applications, which are now considered “mission-critical.” This means if the FDC application is down for any reason, the equipment is considered down as well. It is therefore important to choose a computing platform for the EDA interface that is highly reliable and has enough processing “headroom” to support the high bandwidth requirements of these demanding, on-line production applications. Moreover, this platform should not be shared by other equipment communications, control, or support functions, since these may adversely impact the processing power available for the EDA interface. 

Surprisingly, this approach is not universally adopted, and has been a source of problems for some suppliers, so it is an area of potential differentiation. 

Adherence to Latest Standards 

The automation requirements for the most advanced fabs call for the latest versions (Freeze II) of all the standards in the EDA suite, including the EDA Common Metadata (E164) standard. Dealing with older versions of the standard in the factory systems creates unnecessary work and complexity for the fab’s automation staff, so it is best to implement the latest versions from the outset. The Cimetrix CIMPortal Plus product makes this a straightforward process using the model development and configuration tools in its SDK (Software Development Kit), so there is absolutely no cost penalty for providing the latest generation of standards in your interface.

It takes time and effort for equipment suppliers with older versions of the standards to upgrade their existing implementations, so this, too, is an opportunity for differentiation.

Equipment Metadata Model Content

This is probably the area with the largest potential for competitive differentiation, because it dictates what a factory customer will ultimately be able to do with the interface. If an equipment component, parameter, event, or exception condition is not represented in the equipment model as implemented in the E120 (Common Equipment Model) and E125 (Equipment Self-Description), and E164 (EDA Common Metadata) standards, the data related to that element cannot be collected. In effect, the metadata model IS the data collection “contract” between the equipment supplier and the fab customer.

This is why the most advanced fabs have been far more explicit in their automation purchase specifications with respect to equipment model content, going so far as to specify the level of detailed information they want to collect about process performance, equipment behavior, internal control parameters, setpoints and real-time response of common mechanisms like material handling, vacuum system performance, power generation, consumables usage, and the like. This level of visibility into equipment operation is becoming increasingly important to achieve the required yield and productivity KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) for fab at all technology nodes.

The argument about “who owns this level of information about equipment behavior” notwithstanding, providing the detailed information the fabs want in a structure that makes it easy to find and access is a true source of differentiation.

Self-Monitoring Capability

If you really want to set your equipment apart from your competitors, consider going well beyond simply providing access to the level of information needed to monitor equipment and process behavior and include “built-in” Data Collection Plans (DCPs) that save your customers the effort of figuring out what data should be collected and analyzed to accomplish this. Your product and reliability engineering teams probably already know what the most prevalent failure mechanisms are and how to catch them before they cause a problem… why not provide this knowledge in a form that makes it easy to deploy?

A few visionary suppliers are starting to talk about “self-diagnosing” and “self-healing" equipment… but it will be a small and exclusive group for a while – join them.

Readiness for Factory Acceptance

Before the fab’s automation team can fully integrate a new piece of equipment, it must follow a rigorous acceptance process that includes a comprehensive set of interface tests for standards compliance, performance, and reliability. This process is vital because solid data collection capability is fundamental for rapid process qualification and yield ramp that shorten a new factory’s “time to money.” If you know what acceptance tests and related software tools the fab will use (which is now explicit in the latest EDA purchase specifications), you can purchase the same software tools, perform and document the results of these same tests before shipping the equipment. 

This will undoubtedly speed up the acceptance process, and your customers will thank you for the effort you took to put yourself in their shoes. Incidentally, this usually means the final invoice for the equipment will be paid sooner, which is always a good thing.

In Conclusion

In this posting, we have only scratched the surface regarding the sources of competitive differentiation. As you can see, choosing a commercial platform enables this far more readily than the in-house alternative, because it allows your development team to focus on the topics above rather than worrying about compliance to the standards. If you’d like to know more, please give us a call or click below to talk schedule a meeting. 

Join Brian Rubow for the third video in our five-part video series which covers another of the core features of GEM.

One of the core features for monitoring equipment is the GEM Collection Event Notification. Every equipment will publish a set of collection events. These report in real-time when things are happening at the equipment level that a factory may want to monitor. The equipment will document a set of events that are aviable at the factory level, and the host can choose which ones they want to subscribe to.

View the entire series today!

The second video in our Overview of the GEM Standard video series goes into a little more detail on the GEM standard functionality. 

The GEM standard is broken down into two sets of functionality. One is the fundamental requirements.  These are the things that everyone that uses GEM should implement. It gives some of the basic funtionality you want in every equipment and every device that has a GEM interface. Then there are a number of additional capabilities, meaning you can be GEM compliant without using them, but they are available when needed. 

The GEM standard is extremely efficient, with messages that are always transmitted in a binary format, which is much smaller than ASCII based protocols. Among the benefits of this is that the network bandwidth is not wasted. 

To find out even more, be sure to see the second part of our series today! 

What is a GEM Interface? What are some of the key features of the GEM SEMI Standard? What does the GEM standard have to do with Smart Manufacturing? Brian Rubow, the Cimetrix Director of Solutions Engineering, conducts a five-part video series that covers the complete GEM standard. In this Part One of the series, he covers some of the main questions that are often asked of manufacturing industries looking into GEM for the first time. 

Brian begins the video by answering the question, "What is a GEM Interface". He follows up by addressing the related SEMI standards, including SECS-II and HSMS. 

The GEM standard is feature complete.and includes the following:

• Event Notification
• Alarm Notification
• Data variable collection
• Recipe Management
• Remote Control
• Adjustment Settings
• Operator Interface

GEM is the proven and mature equipment communication standard used by the front-end semiconductor industry for a number of years and has been adopted by a number of other industries because of it's effectiveness. 

View the entire series today!

 

Even for someone who has been in this industry since the days of the TI Datamath 4-function calculator and the TMS1100 4-bit microcontroller (yes, that’s been a LONG time – the movie Grease premiered the same year!), it is sometimes hard to grasp the scope and complexity of what happens in today’s leading-edge semiconductor gigafabs. In fact, the only way to comprehend the enormous volume of transactions that occur is to consider what happens in a single minute – this is illustrated in the infographic we have labeled “The Gigafab Minute.”* 

During the SEMICON West exhibition in San Francisco this past week (July 9-10), the North American Information & Control Committee and its Task Forces met to continue SEMI standards development. Here is a brief summary of the proceedings.

The GEM 300 task force, in addition to reapproving E90, also approved minor title changes to the E39, E39.1, E40 and E40.1 standards. Each SEMI standard must be revised or reapproved to avoid becoming inactive. A few years ago, SEMI changed regulations that mandate that each standard declare its classification, such as a “guide” or “specification”. Since then the task force has been slowly correcting the titles. The E37.1 standard is in the middle of such classification, but has been riddled with reapproval complications due to minor concerns and some needed corrections in the standard. The ballot to make these corrections, 6349, failed for the second time at SEMICON West. The ballot will be slightly reworked and resubmitted for another round of voting. Another ballot, 6348 proposed to clean up the GEM E30 standard, to improve its readability and to bring the standard in conformance with current SEMI regulations and its current style guide. The forefront of the discussions was surrounding the confusing use of acronyms DVNAME, DVVAL, SVV and other such acronyms where the meaning and use of the acronyms was confusing to new readers. The 6348 ballot also failed, but hopefully the task force is progressing towards reaching an agreement. One major challenge is that ballot 6348 is a major revision ballot, where the entire specification is opened up for review and scrutiny, as opposed to line item ballots where only specific sections of a standard are modified.

Finally, and most exciting is ballot 6114B; a revision to the SECS-II E5 standard. The ballot proposed a set of new messages for transferring any large items between a host and equipment. Typically, one item in a message is limited to about 16.7 MB. The new messages are specifically targeting the transfer of equipment recipes, but the messages are written generic enough so that anything else can be transferred, too. The new messages support two styles of item transfer. Either the item can be transmitted in a single message, or broken into parts for transfer with the expectation to be concatenated by the recipient. Or the item can be transmitted in multiple messages, broken into parts with each part sent in a separate message and the same expectation to be concatenated by the recipient. An item is identified by its “type”, “id” and “version”. The messages are intended to resolve current issues with recipes where some equipment suppliers are using recipes that surpass 16.7 MB. And the messages open the door to be used by other SEMI standards and to be customized for specific applications. After passing this ballot, the task force intends to make the messages part of the GEM standard. Even though the ballot 6348 failed, the task force seems to have finally reached consensus on the message formats and continues to work out minor details.

The DDA Task Force continues to work on the next version of the Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA) standards. In the latest cycle of voting, changes were proposed to E138 (ballot 6336), E134 (ballot 6335) and E132 (ballot 6337). Although one part of E134 passed, most of E134 failed and the other ballots failed. All of the failed ballots will be reworked and resubmitted for voting. Additionally, during the task force meeting additional proposed changes were reviewed and discussed. The task force continues to make plans to move from HTTP 1.1 and SOAP/XML to HTTP 2.0 and Protocol Buffers. Specifically, the plan is to recommend using gRPC. Testing done to date indicated an 18 times performance improvement and significant bandwidth reduction. The task force also discussed changes to simplify the equipment model metadata handling. Finally, Cimetrix proposed the implementation of a new method of data sampling designed for higher data collection frequencies. The current trace data collection messages, while very effective for speeds up to maybe 80 Hz, become inefficient when trying to collect data at even faster rates. The concept is called a “cached data sample” where the equipment collects the data at a specified frequency and then reports the data in an array syntax. When using HTTP 2.0 and Protocol Buffers, this will be an especially efficient format expected to allow much higher frequencies.

The client specifies the data collection frequency as well as the reporting frequency. For example, a client might specify a frequency of 10 kHz and a reporting frequency of 1 s, where 10,000 data samples would be reported each second. Such proposal if accepted, combined with the faster Protocol Buffer, will open the door for a number of new data collection applications.

A lot of people are wondering when EDA freeze III will be done. Probably not until late next year. How soon this happens mostly depends on how efficiently task force members provide feedback on the ballot drafts.

Subscribe to our blog in the upper right corner of this page to be sure not to miss that or any of my future updates on the North American Information & Control Committee.

Cimetrix is here at SEMICON West 2018 and we're excited to be a part of the first Smart Manufacturing Pavilion in the South Hall. We hope you've been able to drop by and hear some of the great speeches including our own experts Alan Weber, VP New Product Innovations and our VP & GM Smart Factory Business Ranjan Chatterjee with Dan Gamota (VP Digital Engineering Services) at Jabil.

Alan Weber's presentation is now available online. The topic he chose is "Making Smart Manufacturing Work: The Stakeholder-driven Requirements Development Process".

An important maxim of performance management is “You get what you measure.” This is largely true whether you are talking about employees, organizations, processes, time management, sports teams, or – to highlight a current global industry topic – Smart Manufacturing.

The question now becomes “How DO the industry’s leading manufacturers ensure the equipment they buy will support their Smart Manufacturing objectives?” This presentation explains how the careabouts of key stakeholder groups are “translated” into specific equipment automation and communications interface requirements which can then be directly included in the equipment purchasing specifications. As more semiconductor manufacturing companies take this approach, effectively “raising the bar” for the entire industry, the collective capability of the equipment suppliers will increase in response, to everyone’s benefit.

Through several interviews with leading manufacturers over the past 18 months, we discovered that the best way to accomplish this is through a focused, interactive questionnaire process. By asking very specific questions about people’s daily tasks, problem areas, expectations, success criteria, and other items of constant concern, we can take a generic automation purchase specification outline and generate a complete, factory-specific set of automation and communications interface purchase specifications in a matter of days. This is time well-spent when you consider the value and volume of equipment potentially affected… and the opportunity cost of not having these requirements clearly expressed.

If the above discussion triggers the question “I wonder if our equipment automation purchase specs are sufficient to address the Smart Manufacturing challenges we’ll face in the next few years?” this presentation will interest you. Taking its lessons to heart may be the most important next step you take in formulating you own company’s Smart Manufacturing implementation roadmap.

Get Alan Weber's SEMICON West presentation now!

Yufeng Huang of Cimetrix China, talks about Equipment Control in the factory. Read now in Chinese or below in English.

在和半导体设备制造公司的接触中我们遇到这么一个尴尬的问题，很多懂得设备控制的优秀软件工程师对于GEM，GEM300和EDA标准不是很有经验。这些公司往往是在设备在实验室研发成功，准备产业化送入客户工厂时发现设备没有实现或只有部分实现GEM/GEM300标准，尤其是当客户工厂要求EDA（Interface A）通信接口的时候，这些设备制造商的软件工程师往往一脸茫然，不知道如何在短时间内开发出完全遵循GEM/GEM300/EDA标准的软件。

对于大多数设备公司而言，限制于有限的人力、财力资源，公司很难聘请到足够多富有经验的工厂自动化软件工程师开发自己的GEM/GEM300，甚至EDA软件模块。另外一个棘手的问题是我们发现很多软件工程师不是特别有意愿加入到半导体行业，而是选择比较热门的互联网、游戏，手机App等软件行业。纵观半导体工厂自动化软件市场，虽然已有多家公司提供GEM/GEM300/EDA的软件开发包（SDK），但软件工程师仍旧需要掌握一定的工厂自动化基础知识才能着手编写软件集成代码。工厂自动化涉及大量SEMI标准，譬如GEM标准大概有450页文档，包括E4，E5，E30，E37，E37.1，E172，E173，GEM300标准大概有280页文档，包括E39，E40，E87，E90，E94，E116，E157，E148，而更为复杂的EDA标准大概480有页文档，包括E120，E125，E128，E132，E134，E138，E164，对于大多数非专业的工厂自动化软件工程师而言，工厂自动化软件的集成工作是一件极其繁琐而艰难的任务。

Cimetrix Control Framework^TM (CCF) 是基于微软.Net技术的设备自动化控制软件框架，该软件不仅为设备制造厂商提供了监督控制和生产控制框架代码，而且完全实现了GEM/GEM300/EDA标准。借助CCF软件平台，软件工程师无需深刻掌握工厂自动化的所有SEMI标准，就能轻松变身为工厂自动化开发专家。CCF软件框架内的工厂自动化模块基于Cimetrix公司的CIMConnect，CIM300，CIMPortal Plus三个独立的软件开发套件（SDK）实现，分别对于实现GEM，GEM300，和EDA标准。全球任意一家300mm的芯片制造工厂都有安装了CIM300软件的设备运行，在支持EDA数据采集的工厂都有安装了CIMPortal Plus软件的设备运行。CCF软件框架将所有工厂自动化的开发工作交给Cimetrix公司来完成，设备软件工程师可以把更多的时间花费在如何设计自己的设备控制软件上。

在CCF框架下，CIMConnect/CIM300/CIMPortal Plus的底层API函数都被很好作了封装，软件工程师只需通过CCF框架提供的函数或接口就能轻松实现和工厂主机程序的所有GEM/GEM300标准。实现EDA标准的一个重要任务是创建一个支持分层次结构的设备模型，以及按照标准生成XML数据，此外生成的模型还需满足E164标准。在CCF软件初始化运行时会动态生成设备模型，软件工程师几乎不需要书写EDA代码，设备即可很好的遵循EDA标准。

采用CCF软件框架降低设备控制程序和工厂自动化程序的开发难度和开发周期，但并不意味着我们的客户一定得推翻自己已有的软件平台或已经测试过的稳定代码。CCF是一个提供源代码的完全开放的自动化控制程序框架，你可以将CCF理解成一个已经拼好的乐高玩具，用户既可以将自己的代码模块集成到CCF中，也可以挑选部分CCF功能模块并将其转移到用户自己的框架中。我们用户将CCF中工厂自动化模块（包括GEM/GEM300/EDA）搬迁到自己的程序框架中，在保证完全遵循工厂自动化诸多SEMI标准的同时，对用户已有程序的影响非常小。

得益于CCF框架的完全开放性，像玩乐高积木一样，软件工程师可以轻松享受自由裁剪自己想要的控制系统框架带来的乐趣，这是其他任何一家提供设备控制软件框架程序的公司都很难做到的一件事情。

在未来几年，越来越多的工厂往智能生产制造的方向发展，由此对数据的需要越来越高，EDA标准越来越成为工厂主流的数据采集方法，CCF无疑成为了设备制造商更快更好实现各种工厂自动化标准的最佳武器。 

---

We encountered an interesting issue when working with semiconductor equipment manufacturing companies. Many excellent software engineers who know equipment control are not very experienced with the GEM, GEM300, and EDA standards. Sometimes after equipment is successfully developed in the laboratory and before the equipment is shipped to the factory, we discover that the equipment did not implement or only partially implemented the required GEM/GEM300/EDA standard. This is especially prevalent when the factory requires the EDA (Interface A) communication interface. Equipment software engineers sometimes do not know how to develop software that fully complies with GEM/GEM300/EDA standards in a short period of time.

For most equipment companies with limited human and financial resources, it is difficult for the company to have the resources to develop their own GEM/GEM300/EDA software. Another issue is that we have found many of the more experienced software engineers are more interested in high-profile  internet, gaming, mobile phone apps and other software industries rather than the lower profile semiconductor industry.  Although many companies in the semiconductor factory automation software market have provided GEM/GEM300/EDA software development kits (SDKs), software engineers still need to master certain basic knowledge of factory automation to start writing software integration code. Factory automation involves a large number of SEMI standards. For example, the GEM standard has about 450 pages of documents, including E4, E5, E30, E37, E37.1, E172, E173. GEM300 standards have about 280 pages of documents, including E39, E40, E87, E90, E94, E116, E157, E148. The more complex EDA standard has about 480 pages, including E120, E125, E128, E132, E134, E138, E164. For less experienced factory automation software engineers, the integration of automation software can be an extremely tedious and difficult task.

Cimetrix CIMControlFramework^TM (CCF) is an equipment automation control software framework based on Microsoft .Net technology. This software not only provides equipment manufacturers with supervisory control and equipment control framework code, but also fully implements the GEM, GEM300 and EDA standards. With the help of the CCF software platform, software engineers can easily turn into factory automation development experts without having to master all the factory automation SEMI standards. The factory automation components within the framework of the CCF software are based on CIMConnect, CIM300, and CIMPortal Plus, three independent software development kits (SDKs) from Cimetrix for the implementation of the GEM, GEM300, and EDA standards, respectively. All 300mm chip manufacturing factories in the world have equipment installed which uses CIM300 software. Any factory requiring EDA data collection has equipment installed that uses CIMPortal Plus software. With the CCF software framework, Cimetrix has already done the work of integrating all factory automation into the framework. The equipment software engineer can spend more time on how to develop their own equipment control software.

Under the CCF framework, the underlying API functions of CIMConnect/CIM300/CIMPortal Plus are well encapsulated. Software engineers can easily implement all the GEM/GEM300/EDA standards of the factory host program through the functions or interfaces provided by the CCF framework. An important task in implementing the EDA standard is to create an equipment model that supports hierarchical structures and generate XML data in accordance with standards. In addition, the generated model must also meet the SEMI E164 standard. The equipment model is dynamically generated when the CCF software is initialized. The software engineer needs to do very little to have an equipment control application that is fully compliant with the EDA standard.

The use of the CCF software framework to reduce the difficulty and development cycle of equipment control programs and factory automation programs does not mean that our clients must replace their existing software platforms or stable code that has been tested. CCF is a fully open automation control program framework that provides source code. You can think of CCF as a LEGO toy that has been put together. Users can either integrate their own code modules into CCF or select some of the CCF functional modules and transfer them to their own framework. Our clients can reuse the factory automation modules (including GEM/GEM300/EDA) in CCF in their own program frameworks. While ensuring that all SEMI standards for factory automation are fully complied with. The impact on the user's existing programs is minimal.

Thanks to the complete openness of the CCF framework, like LEGO bricks, software engineers can easily enjoy the freedom of tailoring the control system framework that they want. It is hard for any company that provides an equipment control software framework program to implement such a rich library of functions. 

In the next few years, more and more factories will move in the direction of smart manufacturing. As a result, the demand for data is getting higher and higher. EDA standards are increasingly becoming the factory's mainstream data collection method. CCF will undoubtedly become the best weapon for equipment manufacturers to quickly and completely implement the various factory automation standards.

Previous posts have talked about functionality that allows data to be collected through the GEM interface so the factory applications described in the most recent post can analyze this data. With this posting, we return to a discussion of specific features and capabilities of the SEMI E30 GEM (Generic Equipment Model) standard, specifically the management of error conditions on the equipment.

In a perfect world everything goes according to plan, but in reality, things always go wrong. The secret to success is being able to know when something goes wrong, and then responding appropriately.

Just like a home alarm system, semiconductor fabs want to know when something bad has happened. They want to prevent the material being processed from being scrapped. Alarm management enables the equipment to notify the host when something goes wrong, and provide information about what has gone wrong. The GEM standard defines Alarm Management as the capability to provide host notification and management of alarm conditions occurring on the equipment. 

In GEM, an alarm is any abnormal situation on the equipment that may endanger people, equipment, or material being processed. For example, if a technician opens an access panel to replace a component, the equipment should send an alarm notifying the host that it is not safe to operate the equipment in its current condition. Another example might be if an equipment requires a high temperature for processing but a sensor detects a low temperature condition, it should trigger an alarm, since running the process under those conditions could damage the material being processed. It is also the responsibility of the equipment manufacturer to inhibit unsafe activities on the equipment when an alarm condition is present. The equipment manufacturer knows best what specific alarms are required on the equipment to ensure safety for people, equipment and material.

Often it is useful to have more information about the conditions in the equipment at the time an alarm condition occurs. Communicating that additional information to the host is valuable, but cannot be done through the normal Alarm Report Send/Acknowledge messages. To provide a way to get this additional information, GEM requires that two collection events be defined for each possible alarm condition on the equipment – one event for when the alarm is set, and another for when the alarm is cleared. These collection events allow the GEM event data collection mechanisms to be used to send the additional related information to the host when an alarm changes state.

In addition to providing the time of an alarm state change, Alarm Management on the equipment must allow the Host to request a list of all alarm IDs and associated alarm text. The host must also be able to enable/disable individual alarms on the equipment, and query the equipment for the list of alarms that are currently enabled for reporting.

The state diagram for an Alarm is not very exciting, but it fills a vital need. The picture below illustrates the Alarm State diagram:

GEM alarms only have 2 states: each alarm is either SET or CLEAR. It’s simple but effective.

Alarm Management isn’t rocket science, but through effective use of Alarm Management, fabs can carefully monitor the health of their process equipment and minimize negative impacts to their production yield. 

Click here to read the other articles in our SECS/GEM Features and Benefits series. 

To download a white paper on an introduction to SECS/GEM, Click below:

What do the factories DO with all that data?

Unlike the other postings in this series which deal with specific features and capabilities of the SEMI E30 GEM (Generic Equipment Model) standard, this blog identifies a number of the factory applications that depend on collecting data from the equipment.

Moreover, since we often hear the question “How do the factories actually use the different types of equipment information we’re expected to provide?” this posting will summarize the specific data required to support a number of these applications. This list is by no means exhaustive, but should give you an idea of the range of factory stakeholders whose objectives are supported by GEM data collection.The figure below illustrates the relationship between the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), the factory stakeholders responsible for optimizing them, the applications used to achieve this, and data required by these applications.

The most effective way to share this kind of information is in tabular form. Within a group of related applications (e.g., scheduling, preventive maintenance), the applications are listed in generally increasing order of complexity, which is also the likely order of implementation by the factory applications development staff.

Factory Application	Equipment Data Required
OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness)	Transition events and status codes sufficient to classify equipment states for all time periods
Intra-equipment material flow	Material tracking events; material location state indicators and state change events
Process execution tracking	Start/stop events for all processing modules; recipe step indicators and step change events for all processing modules that support multi-step recipes
WTW (wait time waste) analysis	The combination of events required for the intra-equipment material flow and process execution tracking applications (see above) and context data required to classify material states for all time periods (see the SEMI E168 Product Time Management standard for a deeper explanation)
Time-based PM (Preventive Maintenance)	Run timers at the FRU (field replaceable unit) level
Usage-based PM	Usage parameters and accumulators appropriate for each FRU, such as time-in-state, execution cycles, fluid flow rates, consumables flow rates, power consumption, etc.
Condition-based PM	Meaningful “health indicators” for each FRU
FDC (Fault Detection and Classification)	Equipment/process parameters required by specific fault models and associated context information (this is difficult to do completely because most FDC models are “trained” with knowledge of “good” and “bad” runs, which is not known to the equipment supplier a priori)
Automated equipment interdiction	Remote stop command (e.g., issued by an FDC application sensing an existing or imminent fault)
Equipment configuration monitoring	Vector of important equipment constants with expected values and acceptable ranges; may need to support multiple sets, if the values are setup-dependent. Designed to catch human errors resulting from operator manual adjustments
Component fingerprinting	Performance parameters for key equipment mechanisms, including command/response signals at the sensor/actuator level
Static job scheduling	Setup and execution times per product/recipe combination and current setup information
Real-time job dispatching	Estimate of current job completion time; estimate of completion time for all material queued at the equipment
Factory cycle time optimization	Material buffer contents, job queue information
Operator notification	Notification codes for frequent operator actions in a non-/semi-automated environment, such as load/unload material, select/confirm recipe, provide manual “assist” if the equipment is stuck, etc.
Real-time dashboard	Equipment/component production status indicators
Equipment failure analysis	Meaningful alarm/fault codes and perhaps recent history/statistics
Run-to-run process control	Identification of recipe adjustable parameters and commands to remotely update them

 

To the extent that some of the application data described in the table above can be standardized across equipment types, there is an opportunity to create generic factory applications that would only require a mapping from the supplier-specific GEM IDs (collection event IDs, status/data variables, equipment constants, etc.) to their generic counterparts. But this is a topic for another posting on the concepts of “plug-and-play” in a GEM context.

We hope this explanation helps you appreciate how valuable equipment information is for the factories that consume it, and therefore how important it is to provide a rich set of events, variables, and other detailed information in the GEM interfaces you design in the future. 

Click here to read the other articles in our SECS/GEM Features and Benefits series. 

To download a white paper on an introduction to SECS/GEM, Click below: