Call for Prioritization & Participation In MEMS inemi Initiatives. Updated May 10, 2012

Transcription

1 Call for Prioritization & Participation In MEMS inemi Initiatives Updated May 10, 2012

2 Agenda Objectives from this Webinar Seven Potential MEMS Collaboration Initiatives Two Teams Moving Forward Goals for Today Inputs plus Q&A 1

3 MEMS Workshop in Brighton England Sept 2011

4 Workshop Participants Key Representatives from the Following: ASE CEA/LETI CSR Fraunhofer IZM IMEC NGK SparkPlugs Co Ltd SPTS Tronics Yole Development Bosch Coventor European Space Agency IQE Silicon Ltd inemi ON Semiconductor STMicroelectronics VTT Technical Research Finland 3

5 Workshop Identified Collaboration Needs Not in Priority Order

6 Key Problems and Opportunities 1.) Definition of the methodology for the development and implementation of a highly integrated package with multiple MEMS devices and a high performance ASIC. Includes: Identification of the key barriers to success and how to address them Clarify the material flows and handling requirements How IP will be managed Change Control and Management Systems level calibration must also be owned and managed by the product specified 5

7 Key Problems and Opportunities 2.) Understand and guide the industry movement towards high volume MEMS Modules (Design, Manufacturing, Materials, Interface Specifications) that can then be used widely by many different system integrators. - And..standard modules must be updated frequently and stay up to date with industry technology advancements 6

8 Key Problems and Opportunities 3.) Develop generic reliability testing standards/methods for integrated MEMS devices that enable spec conformance and effectively propagate key device failure mechanisms First step would be to do an analysis of existing MEMS reliability testing methods that are in place, standards in existence, and standards in the work Create a baseline of existing capability and gaps Second step or phase would be to attack gaps with appropriate study and research that ultimately deliver best known reliability test suites for market specific MEMS segments 7

9 Key Problems and Opportunities 4.) Definition of the market specific reliability requirements for testing of medical MEMS Note that the existing inemi Team working Medical product reliability test methodology could add MEMS as a category to be defined/developed. 8

10 Key Problem and Opportunity 5) Identify MEMS aspects of manufacturing that could benefit from common approach in test methods. This could include developing the following: Industry Standard Test vehicles for device qualification Common Material properties Characterization method Stress mitigation etc Simulation Tools Standard Test Methods E.g. Wafer level test Methods Need for both electrical and mechanical Need after dicing testing 9

11 Key Problem and Opportunity 6) Identify opportunities for development of more effective inline testing capabilities: In process monitoring Etch depth monitoring Testing leakage after capping What standard tests are used What is needed 10

12 Key Problem and Opportunity 7) Potential for development of Collaborative Design for Manufacturability Rules and Guidelines That accommodate best in class equipment capabilities including blind etch And detailed tool learning to incorporate in line process test capabilities to calibrate and refine equipment set up and assure product specs are in control 11

13 Key Area of MEMS Research Do the in-depth research on new materials and technologies to efficiently initiate the transduction of electro mechanical devices. Today's technologies require high (30 VDC) voltages with slow turn on times. Fast response low voltage stimulation is needed 12

14 Survey Results and Teams Moving Forward We executed a survey for industry interest on the 7 possible areas of collaboration From that survey we decided to move forward with two teams driving towards two collaborative projects. 1. Develop generic reliability testing specifications / methods for integrated MEMS devices that enable specification conformance and effectively propagate key device failures 2. Identify MEMS aspects of manufacturing that could benefit from a common approach in test methods and identify opportunities for development of more effective in-line testing capabilities Status of team efforts follow with goal of completion of an inemi Statement of Work (SOW) 13

15 Statement of Work Outline Background/Context Scope of Work Purpose of Project Business Impact Previous Related Work Prospective Participants Project Plan Schedule with Milestones Detailed Project Information Project monitoring plans General and Administrative Guidelines 14

16 MEMS Reliability Methodologies Statement of Work Development 05 April 2012

17 MEMS Reliability Methodologies This initiative will investigate the development of generic reliability testing specifications / methods for integrated MEMS devices that enable specification conformance and effectively propagate key device failure mechanisms Name Organization Organization Phone Country Region Steve Greathouse Plexus* EMS steve.greathouse@plexus.com USA Americas Dr Rick Oden Texas Instruments* Device OEM p-oden1@ti.com USA Americas Art Morris Wispry* Device OEM art.morris@wispry.com USA Americas Andrew Holland CSR Device OEM andrew.holland@csr.com UK Europe Michael Aldrich Analog Devices Device OEM mike.aldrich@analog.com +1 (781) USA Americas Siamak Akhlaghi Micralyne Foundry siamak@micralyne.com Canada Americas Iain Hyslop SMC UK University Iain.hyslop@ee.ed.ac.uk UK Europe Vincent Gaff Tronics Microsystems Foundry vincent.gaff@tronisgroup.com France Europe Markku Lahti VTT Research markku.lahti@vtt.fi Finland Europe Brad Factor ASE Packaging bradford.factor@aseeu.com France Europe Jeroen De Coster IMEC Research jeroen.decoster@imec.be Belgium Europe J-P Polizzi LETI Research jean-philippe.polizzi@cea.fr France Europe Kaz Ono NTK Ceramics Packaging ka-ono@mg.ngkntk.co.jp Japan Asia * Prospective Co-Chairs 16

18 Project Is / Is Not Analysis This Project IS: 1. Identify any related research or development within the industry and academic communities 2. Identification of gaps in existing technology for compatibility 3. Provide data, input, and make recommendations to identified standards bodies for modifications / improvements to the standards 4. Assess the effectiveness of the methodologies identified ( Design for Test of Design for NO Test ) MEMS Reliability Methodologies This Project IS NOT: a. Not a development of reliability standards / methodologies b. Not a repeat of prior or existing work c. Not intended to be static that can be used indefinitely without further developments and input from the industry d. Not biased towards specific suppliers or geographies 5. Create a baseline of existing capabilities and gaps e. Not a review of material compatibility issues 6. Lead to well-defined, industry-acceptable lifetime/reliability assessment methodologies f. Not intended to address comparisons between products, equipment assets, components or materials 7. Focused on those attributes which are of most value to supply chain and the participating project members g. Not the identification of failure processes or to conduct extensive reliability evaluations 8. Develop the follow on activities based on the data collected and analyzed 17

19 MEMS Reliability Methodologies MEMS reliability depends on (by order of importance): 1. Type of device, 2. Process (and therefore, material) and 3. Application domain 18

20 MEMS Reliability Methodologies The intent to provide information on: What it would take to qualify a device for deployment (product level) Materials Device System (customer defined) Not the qualification of a foundry (there may be some at the product level overlap) Reference designs could be a starting point for newer technologies Industry consensus on the stresses needed to qualify devices First pass is to answer the what question versus the how Team to work through device priorities and device commonalities and differences 19

21 MEMS Test Methods and Capabilities Project Opportunities Project Formation Team 02 May 2012

22 MEMS Test Methods and Capabilities Name Organization Organization Type Phone Country Michael Gaitan NIST* Research USA Siva Mohandass ASMPT* Equipment Singapore Dave Monk Freescale Semiconductors USA Dr Rick Oden Texas Instruments* Americas/ Asia This initiative will combine two of the original proposals, providing potential refinements for testing in process and at the process back-end: The intent is to: (1) identify MEMS aspects of manufacturing that could benefit from a common approach in test methods and (2) identify opportunities for development of more effective in-line testing capabilities. Device OEM p-oden1@ti.com USA Stevan Hunter On Semi Power Semiconductors stevan.hunter@onsemi.com x6160 USA Siamak Akhlaghi Micralyne Foundry siamak@micralyne.com Canada Jeff Kennedy Celestica Foundry/EMS kennedj@celestica.com USA Bill Bosch LAM Research Equipment bill.bosch@lamrc.com USA Thiery Lazerand Plasma Therm Equipment thierry.lazerand@plasmatherm.com x2421 USA Herbert Bennett NIST Research herbert.bennett@nist.gov USA Mike Aldrich Analog Devices Device OEM mike.aldrich@analog.com USA John Huggins UC Berkeley Research jhuggins@eecs.berkeley.edu USA * Prospective Co-Chairs 21

23 Project Is / Is Not Analysis This Project IS: MEMS Test Methods and Capabilities Identify what data sheets would be the focus of the effort Identify the tests and test methods needed to fill in data sheets, develop industry consensus on what to focus on Identify and assess the protocols which are highest priority (rank which technologies to focus on, e.g., do we focus the effort on accelerometers, ) This Project IS NOT: Not biased towards specific suppliers or geographies Assess the effectiveness of the methodologies identified (gaps in knowledge on the physics of failure or gaps in clarity of spec definition) Clear set of terminologies for use by the project Review and tabulate test methods / Foundry level - need to standardize on what is reported capabilities that have worked in the past (multiple sourcing) wafer level testing (BKM/BKP) Module focus with MEMS devices integrated into a packaged product Extendable to multiple MEMS technologies Not intended to be static; will require on going developments from the industry Focused on those attributes which are of most value to supply chain and the participating project members Develop the follow on activities based on the data collected and analyzed Not a Standards Development Not a Repeat of Existing Work 22

24 Project Possibilities; Accelerometers First Possible Focus Device Manufacturers, Systems Integrators and OEMs will be critical to move this forward MIG identified that the datasheets are critical issue that needs to be solved Datasheets are used as a comparative tool and are in the public domain Companies to provide the protocols they are using anonymously 23

25 Moving Forward Two teams underway and defining the SOW s for the initiatives Intent is to create approved SOW s that then become working projects To participate now (in the initiative phase) you are not required to be an inemi member. Chance to participate, observe, and add value To participate at the project level (approved SOW), you do need to be an inemi member Goals Today: 1.) Broaden the engagement of people and companies in the two initiatives. 2.) Identify the critical next priorities for collaborative efforts. 24

26 Goals for Today Get inputs on the two initiatives moving forward Clarity, priority, scope Broaden the engagement in the inemi initiatives ID the critical next priorities for collaborative efforts 25

27 contacts: Bill Bader Bob Pfahl Grace O Malley - Europe gomalley@inemi.org Haley Fu - Asia haley.fu@inemi.org