[labnetwork] updated survey

Thu May 18 08:56:05 EDT 2017

Good Morning Folks,
I started work at Intel as a process engineer in 1976. In those days we did not have bunny suits, we wore smocks and hair cover and gloves when needed. I retired from Intel in 2010.
We made lots of changes in this area based on need over the years. Changes were justified by data.  Defects are expensive and don’t help you make devices. There are different levels of protocol that can be applied and your lab will need to decide based on what they are making. You should also consider what you may be doing in the future. Getting folks on board with the proper level of discipline is difficult, maintaining the culture is difficult and trying to change to the next level can be an endless task. In a university setting it is even more difficult to make the changes and those that need to benefit from the change will likely be gone before they can benefit.  I would always error on the side of better control in this topic.

Hal Gilles

From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Flounders
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 7:30 PM
To: Paolini, Steven; Ferraguto, Thomas
Cc: Fab Network (labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu)
Subject: Re: [labnetwork] updated survey

Steve,
Have I seen a study - no.
Am I an advocate of modest gowning - yes.
Am I an advocate of no gowning - no
Modest gowning = frock coat, booties and bouffant cap. (and gloves)
This is easy to don and remove for staff that are primarily in the chases.
We switched to full bunny suit instead of frock coat for researchers and
process staff who are mainly in the bays.
I like the additional layer of chemical protection provided to the legs.
Full bunny suit emphasizes you are in a clean room and provides some
level of training on protocol and attention to your environment.
Disposable suits with a single zipper are quick to don and remove.

I don't see either of our protocols as significant impact on productivity.
I have been to many labs that have complex and expensive protocol
that I consider of questionable value.

Good Luck with the national debate.
Bill Flounders
UC Berkeley

Paolini, Steven wrote:
Not to start a national debate but has anybody ever seen a comprehensive study of the benefits of full gowning versus the expense and trouble? As a former Field service engineer and long time fab rat, I have visited many sites and no two follow the same protocol. The interesting part of this is that every site believes that theirs is the best. How can something that’s fairly scientific be so subjective? I do notice that all of these sites are of the “wrap em’ up”  method, but my perennial question is “at what expense?” Is the ten minutes lost to dash out of the clean room to retrieve an item worth whatever benefit full gowning provides? Has anyone ever estimated if the loss of working time because of the added activity is worth the effort? I am a firm believer in that higher air changes per hour is the best contributor to a clean room’s performance. I do doubt however, that the obstacle of full gowning in a clean room class 100 or dirtier offers little, if any, contribution to the overall room performance.
After donning bunny suits for more than 35 years, I have yet to find a comprehensive study on this subject. I have seen many a paper written that emphasizes high particle counts on personnel that aren’t fully gowned but that’s half of the equation, If loss of productivity and general work habit change is factored in, does it become a “non value add” activity? Wouldn’t it be nice if you could just wear booties, a hairnet, and lab coat without any detrimental effects to your space?
I think the microelectronic and nanofabrication community has been influenced by the larger fabs in that whatever they do must be the right thing. It’s been many years since we have been gowning up to enter a clean space but maybe it’s time to determine if the trouble and expense equate to the benefit. Other industries that are under constant expense pressure have altered their methods to lower costs. The food packaging business for example has moved from providing a clean general space to mini environments in which critical process steps are done in a high HEPA flow area directed at the product.
 Is there anyone in this network that questions this practice and has access to a good scientific study that might help settle this (my) dispute? Is there anyone here that can support my claim of full gowning to be high cost/low benefit ?
Thanks for listening.

Steve Paolini
Principal Equipment Engineer
Harvard University Center for Nanoscale Systems
11 Oxford St.
Cambridge, MA 02138
617- 496- 9816
spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu<mailto:spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu>
www.cns.fas.harvard.edu<http://www.cns.fas.harvard.edu>

From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu> [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ferraguto, Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 12:45 PM
To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto:labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: [labnetwork] updated survey

Here’s the updated flash survey for ERP Systems and Interlocks.

On a side note, I did a video audit of our “Honor System” run lab and we did not book 31% of the Activity.

Institution

System

FTE's

Interlocks

Total

52% Home Grown

0.60

83.3%

UC Davis

Badger

0.25

Yes

University of Houston

Home Grown

0.0025

No

Stanford

Badger

0

Yes

University of Utah

Coral

1

Yes

University of Freiburg

Home Grown/w Coral

1

Yes

MIT

Coral

1

Yes

Delft University

Phoenix

2

Yes

University of Delaware

FOM

0.1

Yes

UNC

Home Grown

0.1

No

UC San Diego

FOM

0.25

Yes

University of Louisville

FOM

0.1

Yes

UMass Lowell

FOM

0.2

No

Purdue

Ilab

2

Yes

EPFL-Lausanne-Switzerland:

Home Grown

1

Yes

Cal-Tech

Home Grown/Labrunr

0.3

Yes

University of Texas

Home Grown

0.2

Yes

Harvard

Home Grown

0.1

Yes

Berkeley

Home Grown

0.75

Yes

UCSB

Home Grown/SignupMonkey

0.125

No

Washington Nanofabrication Facility (WNF)

Home Grown/w Coral

1

Yes

Georgia Tech

Home Grown SUMS

2

Yes

Columbia University

Badger

0

Yes

University of Alberta

Home Grown LMACS

0.5

Yes

University of Florida

Home Grown

0.5

Yes

Best Regards

Tom

Thomas S. Ferraguto
Saab ETIC Nanofabrication Laboratory Director
Saab ETIC Building Director
1 University Avenue
Lowell MA 01854
Mobile 617-755-0910
Land 978-934-1809
Fax 978-934-1014

_______________________________________________

labnetwork mailing list

labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu<mailto: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/20170518/91443c34/attachment.html>