[labnetwork] Equipment reservation efficiencies

[Brent Gila]

Hello Vito,

Our tracking system was developed in-house and it stores the 
reservations and actual use in a database.  From this we run reports and 
can compare all aspects of the tool reservation (even when it was made 
or canceled) and the actual tool use.  We then look for large 
discrepancies between the two and address these as needed.  I am not 
familiar with other systems (either turn-key or home made) but our has 
worked very well for us.

We find that with some open discussion with the user groups we can reel 
in the ones that make a 10hr reservation for 1hr of use.  There needs to 
be wiggle room for process issues and it is very hard to predict exact 
times, we have a 15 minute window that is allowable on both ends of the 
reservation to help out with this and take uncommon circumstances into 
consideration when needed.  The more open we are on these kinds of 
issues and the more we communicate effectively with the user groups, the 
less of an issue this has become.

Best Regards,
Brent

-- 
Brent P. Gila, PhD.
Director, Nanoscale Research Facility
1041 Center Drive
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Tel:352-273-2245
Fax:352-846-2877
email:bgila at ufl.edu



On 7/14/2017 4:23 PM, Vito Logiudice wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> We have struggled for some time now with equipment reservations which 
> tend to be much greater than equipment use times. This is especially 
> problematic on some of our most popular tools.
>
> For instance, records for the past 7 day period show an enable (or 
> use) time for our popular e-beam evaporator of 86 hours while the tool 
> was reserved for a total of 192 hours during this period. This 
> translates into a tool reservation efficiency of 45%; this seems very 
> poor to me.
>
> I can appreciate that it can be difficult to estimate how much time 
> one might need on any given tool. However, I’m inclined to think that 
> a robust and well-maintained tool with well understood and documented 
> processes (as is the case for this particular deposition system) 
> should allow our membership to plan their work accurately enough so 
> that the tool’s reservation efficiency should remain consistently 
> above 75% or so.
>
> If this is a parameter that you happen track for your operations, I 
> would appreciate hearing what your typical reservation efficiency 
> range might be for some of your most popular tools. I would also 
> appreciate hearing your thoughts on what you might have done in the 
> past to improve this performance parameter for these particularly 
> popular tools.
>
> Thank you for any insights. All feedback is welcome.
>
> Best regards,
> Vito
> --
> Vito Logiudice  MASc, P.Eng.
> Director, Quantum NanoFab
> University of Waterloo
> Lazaridis QNC 1207
> 200 University Avenue West
> Waterloo, ON Canada N2L 3G1
> Tel.: (519) 888-4567  ext. 38703
> Email: vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca <mailto:vito.logiudice at uwaterloo.ca>
> Website: https://fab.qnc.uwaterloo.ca
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> labnetwork mailing list
> labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu
> https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20170717/6cb07bbf/attachment.html>