|
THE COMPETITIVE SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING HUMAN
RESOURCES PROJECT:
Second Interim Report
CSM-32
Clair Brown, Editor
7. Skills and Work Tasks
Melissa M. Appleyard
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Teams
7.3 Equipment Maintenance
7.4 Statistical Process Control
AP Appendix
FIG Figures 1-16
7.1 Introduction
Rapid and effective problem-solving is a critical activity in the
semiconductor industry. By examining both the workings of teams
and the integration of problem-solving activities into the job tasks
of operators, technicians and engineers, this chapter presents suggestive
evidence of management practices that lead to successful problem-solving
in a semiconductor fab.
Section 7.2 discusses the composition and coordination of teams
in the fifteen fabs in the HR subsample. Teamwork is commonplace
in the majority of fabs in our sample, and teams at different fabs
share many characteristics. The structuring of work tasks and the
participation of workers in specific activities seem to have more
of an impact on performance than the characteristics of teams.
Equipment maintenance and statistical process control (SPC) activities
analyzed in Sections 7.3 and 7.4, respectively, exhibit a greater
degree of variation in human resources practices across the fifteen
fabs than do the data on teams. Section 7.3 describes how the fabs
allocate equipment maintenance tasks across three primary occupations:
operator, technician, and equipment engineer. Similarly, Section
7.4 focuses on the allocation of SPC activities across the operator,
technician and process engineer occupations.
Both equipment maintenance and SPC are central to effective problem-solving
in a fab. Given this, we hypothesize: Fabs that engage in technical
tasks most intensively should exhibit the highest performance. The
correlations between performance measures and total fab SPC in Section
7.4 support this hypothesis, although the correlations involving
equipment maintenance found in Section 7.3 do not. We also hypothesize
that fabs that include their "front-line of defense,"
namely their operators and technicians, in equipment maintenance
and SPC achieve a higher level of performance. With respect to the
operator occupation, evidence in support of this hypothesis is found
in both Sections 7.3 and 7.4. The data in Section 7.4 also highlight
that process engineers play a vital role in successful SPC activities.
A fab's need to solve problems quickly and permanently requires
operators and technicians to identify problems immediately and then
work with engineers to uncover root causes and implement lasting
solutions. The actual participation of workers in these problem-solving
and maintenance activities is more important than their membership
in teams per se.
7.2 Teams
By examining the workings of teams in the fabs in our sample, we
wanted to document options for structuring group problem-solving.
Fourteen of the fifteen fabs in our sample reported having at least
one of the following types of teams: Quality Improvement Teams/Quality
Circles (QITs/QCs), Self-Directed Work Teams (SDWTs), or Cross-Functional
Teams (CFTs). Table 7-1 lists the fabs in our sample and their types
of teams. Although many fabs have instituted group problem-solving
activities, our interviews with teams during site visits taught
us that their level of effectiveness varies greatly.
Table 7-1. Presence of Teams
| |
|
|
Team |
|
| |
|
QIT/QC |
SDWT |
CFT |
| 1) Fabs in Asia |
|
|
|
|
| AS1 |
|
X |
|
X |
| AS2 |
|
X |
X |
|
| AS3 |
|
|
|
|
| AS4 |
|
X |
|
X |
| AS5 |
|
X |
|
|
| AS6 |
|
X |
|
|
| 2) Fabs in the U.S.
|
|
|
|
|
| US1 |
|
X |
X |
X |
| US2 |
|
X |
X |
X |
| US3 |
|
X |
|
X |
| US4 |
|
X |
X |
X |
| US5 |
|
|
X |
X |
| US6 |
|
X |
X |
X |
| 3) Fabs in Europe
|
|
|
|
|
| EU1 |
|
X |
|
X |
| EU2 |
|
|
|
X |
| EU3 |
|
|
|
X |
Table 7-2 contains the definition for
each type of team found in the questionnaire. The definitions reveal
that the teams differ along two primary dimensions: their area of
focus and their level of autonomy. As for their focus, QITs/QCs
and SDWTs concentrate on problems in their immediate work area,
whereas CFTs draw members from a number of work areas. Of the three
types of teams, SDWTs generally have the greatest level of autonomy.
Across the fabs in our sample, QITs/QCs and CFTs are the most pervasive
(11 fabs reported having such teams), with the median number of
such teams being 13 and 9 respectively.
Table 7-2. Team Definitions
| Name of Team |
Definition |
| Quality Improvement Teams/Quality
Circles:
(QITs/QCs)
|
Structured employee participation
groups in which employees from a particular work area meet regularly
to identify and suggest improvements to work-related problems.
|
| Self-Directed Work Teams:
(SDWTs)
|
The work group (in some cases acting
without a supervisor) is responsible for work in its area of
the fab, and it makes decisions about task assignments and work
methods. |
| Cross-Functional Teams:
(CFTs)
|
Structured employee participation
groups in which employees from multiple work areas meet regularly
to identify and suggest improvements to problems. |
Given the nature of the teams, we predicted
that SDWTs would have the greatest number of meetings a week, have
compulsory membership, exist for more than a single project, and
have the greatest level of autonomy for project selection and expenditures.
As Table 7-3 shows, the data support our predictions to some degree.
However, managers play a larger role in SDWTs (as they do in all
types of teams) than we anticipated.
Table 7-3. Characteristics of
Teams
| |
|
|
Team |
|
| |
|
QIT
(n=11 Fabs)
|
SDWT
(n=6 Fabs)
|
CFT
(n=11 Fabs)
|
| 1) # of Meetings/Week
Max |
|
3 |
7 |
2 |
| Min |
|
0.25 |
0.5 |
0.25 |
| Avg |
|
1.0 |
1.9 |
0.8 |
| 2) Voluntary Membership?
Yes |
|
8 |
2 |
7 |
| No |
|
3 |
4 |
4 |
| 3) Single Project
Only? Yes |
|
3 |
1 |
5 |
| No |
|
8 |
5 |
6 |
| 4) Who Decides on
Team's Projects? |
|
|
|
|
| Total no. of fabs
answering "Managers" |
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
| Total no. of fabs
answering "Joint" |
|
6 |
3 |
6 |
| Total no. of fabs
answering "Team" |
|
3 |
2 |
3 |
| 5) Who Authorizes
Team's Expenditures? |
|
|
|
(n=10) |
| Total no. of fabs
answering "Managers" |
|
6 |
3 |
8 |
| Total no. of fabs
answering "Joint" |
|
3 |
2 |
1 |
| Total no. of fabs
answering "Team" |
|
1 |
0 |
1 |
| Total no. of fabs
answering "Other" |
|
1 |
1 |
0 |
| 6) Are Managers or
Supervisors Members? |
|
|
|
|
| Yes |
|
9 |
4 |
10 |
| No |
|
2 |
2 |
1 |
According to the data presented in Table
7-3, CFTs and QITs exhibit very similar characteristics. The fabs
in our sample emphasize both problem-solving across multiple work
areas and quality improvement activities in a single work area to
a similar degree. The importance placed on cross-functional problem-solving
reflects an interesting feature of the semiconductor industry: The
complicated interplay of processing steps requires that workers
in different equipment areas communicate regularly.
Across the fabs in our sample, the three types of teams are very
similar in terms of: size, meeting length, and use of structured
problem-solving techniques. For all three types, the average number
of members is approximately 10, with the average for SDWTs being
the highest (13.3), and the average for CFTs being the lowest (7.5).
An Asian fab reported having the largest teams, QITs/QCs with 30
members, while two other Asian fabs reported having the smallest
teams, CFTs with 4 members. The meetings for all the teams in the
sample last 1-2 hours. Only two fabs reported that their teams do
not use formal problem-solving techniques: one Asian fab with QITs/QCs
and one U.S. fab with SDWTs.
Table 7-4 presents the share of team membership across the three
primary occupations. Relative to operators and engineers, technicians
have the smallest average membership share in QITs/QCs and CFTs.
On average, operators constitute over 60% of the team members for
both QITs and SDWTs which is similar to their share of total headcount
discussed in Chapter 3. Engineers constitute the highest average
share of CFT membership, over 40%, which is triple their share of
total headcount at many fabs in our sample. This high level of participation
by engineers in CFTs reflects the technical challenges faced when
problems span multiple work areas. Such problems require engineering
expertise and leadership for resolution, since successful semiconductor
manufacturing processes rely on the robust integration of process
steps. The average percentage of technicians does not exceed 16%
for any of the teams, which falls just below their average share
of headcount.
Table 7-4. Team Membership by
Occupation
| |
|
QIT
(n=11 Fabs)
|
SDWT
(n=6 Fabs)
|
CFT
(n=11 Fabs)
|
| 1) % Operators |
|
|
|
(n=10) |
| Max |
|
100 |
100 |
70 |
| Min |
|
0 |
10 |
0 |
| Avg |
|
63.5 |
60.0 |
28.4 |
| 2) % Technicians
|
|
(n=10) |
|
(n=10) |
| Max |
|
25 |
41 |
32 |
| Min |
|
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Avg |
|
10.0 |
12.7 |
15.2 |
| 3) % Engineers |
|
|
|
(n=9) |
| Max |
|
100 |
10 |
100 |
| Min |
|
0 |
0 |
6.89 |
| Avg |
|
26.6 |
2.3 |
43.9 |
Go to Next Section
of this Chapter
Go to Table of Contents for this
Chapter
Go to Table of Contents for the
CSM-HR Interim Report
|