Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Expert Systems
with Applications
Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220
www.elsevier.com/locate/eswa

Using expert technology to select unstable slicing machine

to control wafer slicing quality via fuzzy AHP
a,*
Che-Wei Chang , Cheng-Ru Wu b, Huang-Chu Chen c

a
Department of Information Management, Yuanpei University, 306 Yuanpei Street, Hsin Chu 30015, Taiwan, ROC
b
Department of Finance, Yuanpei University, 306 Yuanpei Street, Hsin Chu 30015, Taiwan, ROC
c
Graduate Institute of Business and Management, Yuanpei University, 306 Yuanpei Street, Hsin Chu 30015, Taiwan, ROC

Abstract

Silicon wafer slicing is an increasingly complex manufacturing process. This involves high purity levels, crystallographic perfection
and precise mechanical tolerances, thus 12 in. wafer slicing is the most difficult in terms of semiconductor manufacturing yield. As silicon
wafer slicing directly impacts production costs, semiconductor manufacturers are especially concerned with increasing and maintaining
the yield, as well as identifying why yields decline. The criteria for establishing the proposed algorithm are derived from literature review
and modified Delphi method in semiconductor manufacturing. The main objective of this paper is to propose a new approach within the
AHP framework for tackling the uncertainty and imprecision of silicon wafer slicing evaluations during manufacturing process stages,
where the decision-maker’s comparison judgments are represented as fuzzy triangular numbers. Additionally, the proposed algorithm
can select the evaluation outcomes to identify the worst machine of precision. Finally, results of EWMA control chart demonstrate
the feasibility of the proposed fuzzy AHP-based algorithm in effectively selecting the evaluation outcomes and evaluating the precision
of the worst performing machines. So, through collect data (the quality and quantity) to judge the result by fuzzy AHP, it will the key to
help the engineer can find out the manufacturing process yield quickly effectively.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Silicon wafer slicing; Modified Delphi method; Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process; EWMA control chart

1. Introduction unprecedented levels. Since 1980, the competition of semi-

The pervasiveness of electronic products and Internet-
based technologies has significantly contributed to the
accelerated development and global competitiveness of
the semiconductor industry in Taiwan. Global semiconduc-
tor manufacturers confront another crucial moment over
the past 30 years, each participator among them maintains
at 12 in. wafer factories. The reason that 12 in. wafer facto-
ries having so great influence lies in the tow great factors
that properties of product of quick promotion and reduc-
ing the production cost, thus elevating the global compe-
titiveness of Taiwanese semiconductor manufacturers to
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 6102361; fax: +886 3 6102362.
E-mail addresses: tjmccw@xuite.net (C.-W. Chang), alexru00@
ms41.hinet.net (C.-R. Wu), andy226626@yahoo.com.tw (H.-C. Chen).
conductor industry regards the manufacturing process
technique, the yield and the cycle time as the targets of
yardsticks. A wafer slicing saw is a machine used to slice
silicon ingots into silicon wafers. It is key to an important
step in the production of silicon wafers that go on to be
used as raw material in the manufacture of integrated
circuits. Silicon wafers vary in diameter, surface features
(polished or epitaxial), composition, purity levels, crystal
properties, and electrical properties. Semiconductor
manufacturers require wafers of larger diameter and more
stringent technical specifications in order to produce
increasingly complex semiconductor devices such as the
larger megabit memory chips and microprocessors. Twelve
inch wafer slicing is currently the most difficult in terms
of controlling yield in semiconductor manufacturing. As
silicon wafer slicing directly impacts production costs,

0957-4174/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.02.042
 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220
increasing and maintaining wafer yield, as well as under-
standing factors contributing to declining yields are of pri-
ority concern among semiconductor manufacturers.
Previous studies on product quality in semiconductor
manufacturing have largely adopted statistical methods
to examine either wafer yield or how process engineers
select the process parameters of wafer yield based on their
subjective experiences. Those results are then analyzed
using statistical or experimental design methods. However,
semiconductor manufacturing includes up to thousands of
process parameters that influence each other, making it
extremely difficult to determine those factors that influence
them. Cunningham, Spanos, and Voros (1995) indicated
that, although conventional statistical and experimental
design methods have enhanced wafer yield, statistical
methods have many limitations with respect to complex
mutual influence and the non-linear problem. Additionally,
Braha and Shmilovici (2002) found that under a large num-
ber of parameters used in semiconductor manufacturing,
statistical methods couldn’t analyze useful decision infor-
mation efficiently.
Silicon wafer manufacturing processes include crystal
growing, pulling, slicing, lapping, etching, polishing, and
cleaning. Lin, Chen, and Chang (2002) proposed this mea-
surement items of process quality and the parameters of
quality control are: (1) lack of precision in measuring thick-
ness (THK) (ASTM F657, 1995), bow (ASTM F534, 1995),
warp (Takeshi, 1998), total thickness variation (TTV)
(Takeshi, 1998), center thickness (CTRTHK) (Takeshi,
1998), caused by unstable motion of the wire knife and
scrape mark during slicing process and (2) quality control
parameters, such as, electricity, resistivity and oxidation
that relate to crystal pulling are not discussed in this paper.
In polishing, quality characteristics in item (1) are incorpo-
rated to enhance the polished wafer by using precision pol-
ishing machines. Silicon wafer slicing manufacturing
process exhibits several characteristics. They are: (1) the
product type is small batch production, (2) saw cutting
must be very precise, (3) the process run time is long, and
(4) inspecting samples is difficult. Furthermore, the process
involves several synchronously occurred multiple quality
characteristics, such as thickness (THK), bow and warp,
which must be closely monitored and controlled. However,
the manufacturing cost of polishing is significantly higher
than that of slicing. Hence, quality control focuses largely
on slicing. While adopting the EWMA control chart, Lin
et al. (2002) verified that analysis bow is the worst quality
characteristic in wafers. From the perspective of quality
feature, the manufacturing wafer yield of silicon wafer slic-
ing that bow is of priority concern.
The complex process and high variation in wafer fabri-
cation make its production management very difficult
(Pai, Lee, & Su, 2004). Yield of the silicon wafer slicing is
the most difficult to control. Silicon wafer slicing is a com-
plex manufacturing process, complicating efforts to domi-
nate process stability and quality control effectively. A
wafer can be easily broken during inspection owing to its
2211
thinness and brittleness (Lin, Chang, & Chen, 2005). More-
over, slicing is a cutting procedure that has difficulty in
yielding the required precision. Wafer slicing depends on
variables of machine-related, human-related, manage-
ment-related and measurement accuracy-related factors to
ensure quality of manufacturing operations, errors in which
would destabilize the slicing process (Lin, Chang, & Chen,
2004).
This study presents an evaluation decision model that
assesses the yield quality of 12 in. wafer slicing in semicon-
ductor manufacturing. A literature review is performed,
along with the modified Delphi method and a novel
AHP-based method for resolving the uncertainty and
imprecision of silicon wafer slicing evaluations during
manufacturing process stages, where the decision-maker’s
comparison judgments are represented as fuzzy triangular
numbers. In order to deal with the uncertainty and vague-
ness from subjective perception and experience of one’s in
decision process, we propose a revised fuzzy AHP based
on linguistic variable weight method. We utilize the sym-
metric triangular fuzzy numbers to obtain the fuzzy judg-
ment matrices via pair-wise comparison. And then the
fuzzy interval arithmetic and confidence index a with
interval mean approach are used to estimate the fuzzy
eigenvectors. Also, aggregate decision-makers’ judgment
matrices to obtain the global weights ranking of relative
importance and these results can provide location selection
of insights. In fact, many real-world decision problems
involve multiple criteria in qualitative domains. As
expected, such problems will be increasingly modeled as
multiple criteria decision-making problems, which involve
scoring on subjective/qualitative domains. This results in a
class of significant problems for which an evaluation
framework, which handles occurrences of seeming intran-
sitivity and inconsistency, will be required. Another inter-
esting issue of group decision-making analysis is how to
deal with disagreements between two or more different
rankings within an alternative set. These phenomena are
likely to appear in qualitative/subjective domains where
the decision-making environment is ambiguous and vague.
Therefore, this study proposes a fuzzy AHP model of
silicon wafer manufacturing processes that is sufficiently
robust to permit conflict and imprecision. Numerical
examples demonstrate the effectiveness and applicability
of the proposed models in deriving the most promising
priority vector from a fuzzy AHP problem within a group
decision-making environment. Additionally, the proposed
algorithm can select the evaluation outcomes to identify
the worst machine of precision. Finally, the exponen-
tial weighted moving average (EWMA) control chart
demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed fuzzy
AHP method in selecting the evaluation outcomes and
evaluating the precision of the worst performing machines.
The proposed evaluation decision model significantly con-
tributes to efforts in silicon wafer slicing to establish a
standard operational procedure for ensuring quality yield
in the semiconductor industry.
2212 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220
2. Methodology
The criteria for the evaluation decision model are
derived following an exhaustive literature review through
use of the modified Delphi method. After the evaluation
criteria hierarchy is constructed, the criteria weights are
calculated by applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy process,
the proposed algorithm can select the evaluation outcomes
to identify the worst machine of precision. Finally, use of
the EWMA control chart demonstrates the feasibility of
the proposed fuzzy AHP-based algorithm in effectively
selecting the evaluation outcomes and evaluating the preci-
sion of the worst performing machines.
2.1. Modified Delphi method
The Delphi method accumulates and analyzes the results
of anonymous experts that communicate in written, discus-
sion and feedback formats on a particular topic. Anony-
mous experts share knowledge skills, expertise and
opinions until a mutual consensus is achieved (Sung,
2001). The Delphi method consists of five procedures: (1)
select the anonymous experts; (2) conduct the first round
of a survey; (3) conduct the second round of a question-
naire survey; (4) conduct the third round of a questionnaire
survey; and (5) integrate expert opinions and to reach a
consensus. Steps (3) and (4) are normally repeated until a
consensus is reached on a particular topic (Sung, 2001).
Results of the literature review and expert interviews can
be used to identify synthesize all common views expressed
in the survey. Moreover, step (2) is simplified to replace the
conventionally adopted open style survey; doing so is com-
monly referred to as the modified Delphi method (Sung,
2001). Therefore, this study develops quality evaluation cri-
teria for silicon wafer slicing manufacturing by using the
modified Delphi method, as well as by conducting inter-
views with anonymous experts, and survey of outcome
direct to focusing in our research subject. Therefore, the
decision-making group probably should not be too large,
i.e. a minimum of five to a maximum of about 50 (Robbins,
1994). Murry and Hammons (1995) suggested that the
modified Delphi method summarize expert opinions on a
range from 10-30. So, in this study, 13 experts participated
in the modified Delphi method-based decision group. To
ensure non-interference, opinions of the expert group are
accumulated, followed by synthesis of those opinions
among the manufacturing engineering experts to identify
the major factors for consideration in the quality evalua-
tion criteria of silicon wafer slicing manufacturing.
2.2. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process methodology
As a decision method that decomposes a complex multi-
criteria decision-making (MCDM) problem into a hierar-
chy (Saaty, 2000), AHP is also a measurement theory that
prioritizes the hierarchy and consistency of judgmental
data provided by a group of decision makers. AHP incor-
porates the evaluations of all decision makers into a final
decision, without having to elicit their utility functions on
subjective and objective criteria, by pair-wise comparisons
of the alternatives (Saaty, 1990). Ho (2004) applied AHP
model to strategically evaluate emerging technologies in
the semiconductor foundry industry. Yang, Su, and Hsu
(2000) applied AHP to determine systematic layout plan-
ning on semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities. Yurda-
kul (2004) adopted AHP to develop machine tool
alternatives selection that contributes to the manufacturing
strategy of a manufacturing organization. AHP has thus
been successfully applied to a diverse array of problems.
However, AHP is thus ineffective when applied to ambigu-
ous problem. Since the real world is highly ambiguous,
some scholars have combined the fuzzy theory with AHP
to develop the mediate this shortfall.
Fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making (FMADM)
methods have been developed owing to the imprecision in
assessing the relative importance of attributes and the per-
formance ratings of alternatives with respect to attributes.
Imprecision may arise from a variety of reasons: unquanti-
fiable information, incomplete information, unobtainable
information and partial ignorance. Conventional MADM
methods cannot effectively handle problems with such
imprecise information. To resolve this difficulty, fuzzy set
theory, first introduced by Zadeh, has been used and is
adopted herein. Fuzzy set theory attempts to select, prior-
itize or rank a finite number of courses of action by evalu-
ating a group of predetermined criteria. Solving this
problem thus requires constructing an evaluation proce-
dure to rate and rank, in order of preference, the set of
alternatives. This study adopts the notions of Buckley
(1985) and Hsu and Yang (2000) to analyze data and reach
a consensus among experts. Moreover, the eigenvector
method is used to calculate weights. Huang and Wu
(2005) use the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)
method, which establish a new managerial talent assess-
ment model for the assessors of the IC packaging industry.
Tzeng, Chiang, and Li (2007) proposed model of AHP and
the fuzzy is capable of producing effective evaluation of e-
learning programs with adequate criteria that fit with
respondent’s perception patterns. Kang and Lee (2007)
proposes an application of the fuzzy AHP in a fab regard-
ing strategies for accepting orders with the consideration of
manufacturing efficiency in the aspects of product, equip-
ment efficiency and finance. Therefore, this paper use
fuzzy AHP demonstrates the applicability and ease of the
model for the manufacturing quality yield of silicon wafer
slicing.
The AHP of Saaty (1980) only uses the pair-wise com-
parison matrix to evaluate the ambiguity in multi-criteria
decision marking problems as in Eq. (1). Let C1, C2, . . . , Cn
denote the set of elements, while aij represents a quantified
judgment on a pair of elements Ci, Cj. The relative impor-
tance of two elements is rated using a scale with the values
1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, where 1 refers to ‘‘equally important’’, 3
denotes ‘‘slightly more important’’, 5 equals ‘‘strongly
 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220
more important’’, 7 represents ‘‘demonstrably more impor-
tant’’ and 9 denotes ‘‘absolutely more important’’. An n-
by-n matrix A as follows:
ð1Þ
where aii = 1 and aji = 1/aij, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n.
The fuzzy AHP substitutes the specific figure for aij with
triangular fuzzy numbers aij, implying that triangular fuzzy
numbers are substituted into the pair-wise comparison
matrix to deal with criteria measurement and determine
the fuzzy consensus problem in judgment. In Hsu and
Yang (2000), different a-cuts are then converted. Relative
weights of the elements of each level are calculated as
follows:
(I) Establishment of triangular fuzzy numbers: Saaty
(1980) contended that the geometric mean accurately repre-
sents the consensus of experts and is the most widely used
in practical applications. Here, geometric mean is used as
the model for triangular fuzzy numbers. Zadeh (1965)
introduced the fuzzy set theory to deal with the uncertainty
due to imprecision and vagueness. A major contribution of
fuzzy set theory was its capability of representing vague
data. The theory also allowed mathematical operators
and programming to apply to the fuzzy domain. A fuzzy
set is a class of objects with a continuum of grades of mem-
bership. Such a set is characterized by a membership func-
tion, which assigns to each object a grade of membership
ranging between zero and one. A triangular fuzzy number
(TFN) is shown in Fig. 1. A TFN is denoted simply as
(L, M, U). The parameters L, M and U, respectively, denote
the smallest possible value, the most promising value and
the largest possible value that describe a fuzzy event.
Since each number in the pair-wise comparison matrix
represents the subjective opinion of decision makers and
is an ambiguous concept, fuzzy numbers work best to con-
1 degree of a decision-maker’s pessimism (Hsu & Yang,
U(x)
X k
L M U ðaaij Þ ¼ ½k  Laij þ ð1  kÞ  U aij ;
Fig. 1. Triangular fuzzy numbers.
2213
solidate fragmented expert opinions. The triangular fuzzy
numbers ~uij are established as follows:
~uij¼ ðLij ; M ij ; U ij Þ; Lij 6 M ij 6 U ij and
Lij ; M ij ; U ij 2 ½1=9; 1 [ ½1; 9; ð2Þ
Lij ¼ minðBijk Þ; ð3Þ
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
n
Yn
M ij ¼ Bijk ; ð4Þ
k¼1
U ij ¼ maxðBijk Þ; ð5Þ
where Bijk represents a judgment of expert k for the relative
importance of two criteria Ci  Cj.
(II) Establishment of fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix
ð6Þ
where ~a12 denotes a triangular fuzzy matrix for the relative
importance of two criteria C1 and C2. Meanwhile, ~ aij rep-
resents the triangular fuzzy numbers by Eqs. (2)–(5).
(III) Defuzzification: Various defuzzication methods are
available, and the method adopted in this study was
derived from Hsu and Nian (1997), as well as Liu and
Wang (1992). As shown in Eq. (7), this method can clearly
express fuzzy perception. Owing to the ability of this
method to explicitly display the preference (a) and risk tol-
erance (k) of decision makers, decision makers can more
thoroughly understand the risks they face under different
circumstances.
Notably, a can be viewed as a stable or fluctuating con-
dition (Hsu & Yang, 2000). The range of uncertainty is the
greatest when a = 0. Meanwhile, the decision-making envi-
ronment stabilizes when increasing a while, simultaneously,
the variance for decision-making decreases. Additionally, a
can be any number between 0 and 1, and analysis is nor-
mally set as the following 10 numbers, 0.1, 0.2, . . . , 1 for
uncertainty emulation. Besides, while a = 0 represents the
upper-bound Uij and lower-bound Lij of triangular fuzzy
numbers, and while, a = 1 represents the geometric mean
Mij in triangular fuzzy numbers, k can be viewed as the
2000). When k is 0, the decision maker is more optimistic
and, thus, the expert consensus is upper-bound Uij of the
triangular fuzzy number. Conversely, when k = 1, the deci-
sion maker is pessimistic, and the number ranges from 0 to
1; however, five numbers 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9, are used
to emulate the state of mind of decision makers:
0 6 k 6 1; 0 6 a 6 1;
ð7Þ
2214 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220

where Laij ¼ ðM ij  Lij Þ  a þ Lij , represents the left-end va- where w denotes the eigenvector of (Aa)k, 0 6 k 6 1,
lue of a-cut for aij, U aij ¼ U ij  ðU ij  M ij Þ  a, represents 0 6 a 6 1. Comparing Eqs. (1) and (9), the traditional
the right-end value of a-cut for aij AHP only uses a specific figure geometric mean to repre-
sent the expert opinions for the pair-ware comparison ma-
ðaaji Þk ¼ 1=ðaaij Þk ; 0 6 k 6 1; 0 6 a 6 1; i > j: ð8Þ
trix. However, the triangular fuzzy numbers are used to
The single pair-ware comparison matrix is expressed in present the fuzzy opinions and expert consensus. Mean-
Eq. (9) while, both approaches use the eigenvector method for
weight calculation.
(V) Consistency test: The essential idea of the AHP is
that a matrix A of rank n is only consistent if it has one
positive eigenvalue n = kmax while all other eigenvalues
are zero. Further, Saaty developed the consistency index
(CI) to measure the deviation from a consistent matrix:
CI ¼ ðkmax  nÞ=ðn  1Þ: ð12Þ

ð9Þ The consistency ratio (CR) is introduced to aid the deci-

(IV) Calculation of eigenvalue and eigenvector: Notably, sion on revising the matrix or not. It is defined as the ratio

k is assumed to be the eigenvalue of the single pair-ware of the CI to the so-called random index (RI) which is a CI
comparison matrix (Aa)k: of randomly generated matrices:
CR ¼ CI=RI; ð13Þ
ðAa Þ  W ¼ 
k
kmax  W ; ð10Þ
for n = 3 the required consistency ratio (CRGoal) should be
a k
½ðA Þ  kmax   W ¼ 0; ð11Þ less than 0.05, for n = 4 it should be less than 0.08 and for

Step 1: Define the evaluative criteria and sub-criteria used to select the
Modified Delphi Method
worst performing machine in terms of precision.

Step 2: Establish a hierarchical framework.

Step 3: Establish the triangular fuzzy numbers.

Step 4: Establish each fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix.

Step 5: Calculate the eigenvalue and eigenvector.

FAHP
Step 6: Calculate the α-cut.

Step 7: Perform the consistency test.

Step 8: Compute the relative weight of the elements for each level.

Step 9: Calculate the overall level hierarchy weight to select the worst
performing machine in terms of precision.

Step 10: Perform EWMA verifying analysis of previous Fuzzy AHP step EWMA
results.

Fig. 2. The manufacturing quality of silicon wafer slicing decision model to select worst machine of precision processes.
 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220 2215

n P 5 it should be less than 0.10 to get a sufficient consis-
tent matrix. Otherwise the matrix should be revised (Saaty,
1994).
(VI) Compute the overall hierarchy weight: After the
weights for various hierarchies and elements are computed,
computation results for the overall hierarchy weight are com-
piled. Finally, the most appropriate strategy is determined.
ufacturing process. Also, a previous study adopted EWMA
to verify the analysis results of bow (Lin et al., 2002). By
adjusting the drift of the wire knife to enhance the quality
of discussions among experts on slicing, the EWMA con-
trol chart demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed
AHP-based algorithm.

3. Decision model application and results

2.3. Exponential weighted moving average control chart
Roberts (Loon & Su, 1999) introduced the EWMA con-
trol chart as a tool for detecting small shifts in the mean of
a process. In the semiconductor industry, EWMA-based
controllers have led to the development of EWMA feed-
back controllers for compensating against disturbances
that affect the batch-to-batch variability in the quality
characteristics of silicon wafers at a process setup (Butler
& Stefani, 1994; Sachs & Montgomery, 1996–1997). Alej-
andro, Douglas, George, Connie, and Richard (2001) con-
structed control charts based on orthogonal contrasts to
detect specific deviations from target for a semiconductor
manufacturing operation. They investigated both Shewhart
and EWMA charts. The EWMA charts are more effective
in shift detection than their Shewart counterparts when
the shift is small. An EWMA control chart detects abnor-
mal product quality efficiently and informs the product
engineer (Lucas & Saccussi, 1992). Therefore, the proposed
algorithm can closely monitor a slight variation in the man-
This model for evaluating the worst machine of preci-
sion comprises the following steps, selection to worst
machine of precision measurement process in Fig. 2.
Step 1: Define the evaluative criteria and sub-criteria used
to select the worst performing machine in terms of
precision. Here, the evaluation criteria and sub-
criteria are defined using the modified Delphi
method. Administrators and engineers from 13
wafer factories were then issued a preliminary
questionnaire in which four evaluation criterion
and 11 evaluation sub-criterion were incorpo-
rated. Each criterion was defined in terms of oper-
ation (Table 1).
Step 2: Establish a hierarchical framework. Based on the
modified Delphi method, a general consensus
among experts can be reached to establish a hier-
archical structure. The worst performing machine
in terms of precision can be selected and evaluated

Table 1
Operational type for defining criteria and sub-criteria factors
Code name The operating type defining
Criteria
Machine-related (C1) The defective rate is owing to the machine
Human-related (C2) Human factors result in the reason of the slice defective rate
Management (C3) Implement the goal to ensure the process yield of the wafer slice
Measurement (C4) Balance the approaches of wafer slicing using a relevant measurement procedure
Sub-criteria
Wire knife life cycle (CS1) The wire knife life has serious influence in its processing capability. As the wire knife is still used under
the state of scrap item, it tends to produce injured knife and cause chip defective rate
Machine precision (CS2) Because of using machine for a long time, the accuracy of machine becomes worse that will influence the
chip quality and the yield after processing
Parameters setting (CS3) A bad setting of the machine parameter would influence the process capability
Establish adjusting standard (CS4) Establishing a suit of managements of the standard process would make the staff deal with the problem s
procedures of the process in order
Engineer’s experience (CS5) An engineer has to accept the whole in-service training before working and has to possess the related
technique knowledge so that operating the machine practically and raising the product yield
Adjusting time (CS6) Proofreading regularly could guarantee the process capability
Color management (CS7) Use color management to enable not only staff but the raw material and the control of the poor yield
could be conducted
Online education (CS8) On-line training could enhance professional knowledge and engineering expertise, as well as reduce the
errors of the artificial importation and increase productivity
Multi-response (CS9) Adequate control is available for the multiple quality characteristics, which could effectively determine
the optimum factor-level combinations and raise the proficiency of the wafer slicing process
Method to check (CS10) A verification method to achieve the most reliable measurement would effectively promote the ability and
proficiency of the process
Measure characteristic (CS11) Formulating the measurement quality characteristics could reduce engineering errors; otherwise, the
characteristics of errors could be easily identified
2216 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220

Level 1: goal Level 2: criteria Level 3: sub-criteria Level 4: alternatives

Wire knife life cycle

Machine-related Machine precision

DFD660
Parameters setting

Establish adjusting standard procedures

Human-related Engineer’s experience

Manufacturing
Quality of
Silicon Wafer Adjusting time DFD670
Slicing
Color management

Management Online education

Multi-response
A-WD-300
Method to check
Measurement
Measure characteristic

Fig. 3. Hierarchical structure to select the manufacturing quality of silicon wafer slicing.

Table 2 Table 3
Fuzzy aggregate pair-wise comparison matrix for criteria of level 2 Aggregate pair-wise comparison matrix for criteria of level 2
Goal C1 C2 C3 C4 Goal C1 C2 C3 C4
C1 1, 1, 1 1/2, 1.909, 3 1/3, 0.951, 3 1/2, 1.147, 3 C1 1 1.829 1.309 1.449
C2 — 1, 1, 1 1, 1.582, 3 1, 1.622, 3 C2 0.547 1 1.791 1.811
C3 — — 1, 1, 1 1/4, 1.026, 3 C3 0.764 0.558 1 1.325
C4 — — — 1, 1, 1 C4 0.690 0.552 0.755 1
kmax = 4.103071; CI = 0.034357; RI = 0.90; CR = 0.038175 6 0.1
based on four evaluation criteria, 11 evaluation
sub-criteria and, finally, the alternatives (Fig. 3). Step 5: Calculate the eigenvalue and eigenvector. Using the
Step 3: Establish the triangular fuzzy numbers. According comparison matrix (such as in Table 3), the eigen-
to Table 2, administer the AHP questionnaire to vectors were calculated by Eqs. (10) and (11).
sample 16 respondents comprised of administra- Table 4 summarizes the results of the eigenvectors
tors and engineers from wafer factories, with each for criteria, sub-criteria and three diamond cut-
respondent making a pair-wise comparison of the ting machines.
decision elements and then assigning those rela- Step 6: Calculate the a-cut. Experts can determine a-cut
tive scores. subjectively, depending on environmental uncer-
Step 4: Establish each fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix. tainty for evaluating the objectives of the manu-
Perform defuzzification using Eqs. (7) and (8) facturing wafer yield of silicon wafer slicing.
and establish the fuzzy pair-wise comparison Notably, a higher a value can be selected when
matrix. For instance, the main criteria as the sam- the decision-making environment is stable and
ple, such as in Table 3. information is readily available. Conversely, when
According to Table 3, when a and c = 0.5, defuzz- the decision marking is ambiguous, and informa-
ification is performed as follows: tion is lacking, a lower a value can be used to
more accurately reflect reality. Furthermore, the
L0:5
12 ¼ ð1:909  1=2Þ  0:5 þ 1=2 ¼ 1:204;
evaluator can be based on their own judgment
and, furthermore, adopt a conservative or opti-
U 0:5
12 ¼ 3  ð3  1:909Þ  0:5 ¼ 2:454;
mistic attitude when determining k value. Where
0:5
ða0:5
12 Þ ¼ ½0:5  1:204 þ ð1  0:5Þ  2:454 ¼ 1:829; k = 0 represents the most optimistic scenario,
ða0:5
0:5
¼ 1=½ða0:5
0:5 while k = 1 is the most pessimistic scenario. Fol-
21 Þ 12 Þ  ¼ 1=1:829 ¼ 0:547:
lowing modified Delphi method discussion and a
 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220 2217

Table 4
Weights of the criteria, sub-criteria and three diamond cutting machines
Criteria Weights of criteria Sub-criteria Weights of sub-criteria Global priority DFD660 DFD670 A-WD-300
C1 0.331 CS1 0.330 0.109 0.310 0.452 0.238
CS2 0.330 0.109 0.394 0.334 0.272
CS3 0.340 0.113 0.341 0.371 0.288
Global priority 0.348 0.386 0.266
C2 0.280 CS4 0.333 0.093 0.394 0.320 0.286
CS5 0.380 0.106 0.366 0.345 0.289
CS6 0.287 0.081 0.431 0.301 0.268
Global priority 0.394 0.324 0.282
C3 0.211 CS7 0.273 0.058 0.365 0.414 0.221
CS8 0.342 0.072 0.249 0.400 0.351
CS9 0.385 0.081 0.438 0.296 0.266
Global priority 0.353 0.364 0.283
C4 0.178 CS10 0.402 0.072 0.355 0.428 0.217
CS11 0.598 0.106 0.317 0.430 0.253
Global priority 0.332 0.429 0.239

Table 5
Eigenvectors (weights) of criteria under different a-cuts when k = 0.5
a-Cuts
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
C1 0.352 0.347 0.342 0.337 0.331 0.325 0.319 0.312 0.305 0.298
C2 0.289 0.287 0.285 0.283 0.280 0.278 0.275 0.272 0.270 0.267
C3 0.201 0.203 0.205 0.208 0.211 0.213 0.216 0.219 0.222 0.225
C4 0.158 0.162 0.167 0.172 0.178 0.184 0.190 0.196 0.203 0.210

consensus of opinion among the 16 experts, 0.5 of the five experts and 11 users are all <0.1, indi-
was assigned as the value of k. To understand cating ‘‘consistency’’. Furthermore, the CR of the
how criteria weights impact various evaluation aggregate matrix is also <0.1, also indicating
environments, a of 0.1–1 were attempted to more ‘‘consistency’’.
thoroughly understand the change of ranking in Step 8: Compute the relative weight of the elements for
the evaluation criteria. In the following analysis, each level. Aggregated scores provided by all deci-
when a = 1, the fuzzy number becomes concrete, sion makers are aggregated as showen in Table 4.
thus confirming the evaluation results of AHP Table 4 summarizes the relative weight of the ele-
where a < 1 falls under the fuzzy concept results. ments for each level.
Table 5 summarizes the results of eigenvectors Step 9: Calculate the overall level hierarchy weight to select
for the four criteria under various a-cut when the worst performing machine in terms of precision.
k = 0.5. The composite priorities of the alternatives are
Table 5 summarizes different a-cuts, machine- then determined by aggregating the weights
related, human-related, management and throughout the hierarchy. The composite priori-
measurement according to the magnitude of envi- ties of the alternatives are showed Table 6.
ronmental changes. When experts confer that
Table 6
uncertainty is increasingly higher, the significance Selection of the worst performing machine in terms of precision in silicon
of management and measurement becomes more wafer slicing
apparent. Conversely, when experts believe uncer- Criteria Weights DFD660 DFD670 A-WD-300
tainty is increasingly lower, the significance of Global Global Global
machine-related and human-related rises. How- priority priority priority
ever, in this study, a = 0.5 is used to express that C1 0.331 0.348 0.386 0.266
environmental uncertainty is steady. C2 0.280 0.394 0.324 0.282
Step 7: Perform the consistency test. According to Eqs. C3 0.211 0.353 0.364 0.283
(12) and (13) the criteria comparison matrix of C4 0.178 0.332 0.429 0.239
consistency for each criterion is calculated, as Result Aggregate 0.359 0.371 0.269
shown in Table 2. Results of the consistency test score
Rank 2 1 3
and the CR of the comparison matrix from each
2218 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220

According to Table 6, ‘‘A-WD-300’’ is used to Step 10: Perform EWMA verifying analysis of previous
select the evaluation outcomes and evaluate the fuzzy AHP step results. The process standard
worst performing machine in terms of precision. deviation, r, is estimated using the X chart and,

25
Group 1 Group 4 Group 5
Group 3
Group 2 47
20 20
12 33 61
UCL
15

X
10 LCL

0
1

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66
represents out of control Subgroup

Fig. 4. DFD660 of Bow’s EWMA chart by X counts.

25

Group 2 Group 3
20 Group 1 59
40
19 UCL
15
X
10 LCL

0
1

11

21

31

41

51

61
6

16

26

36

46

56

66

represents out of control Subgroup

Fig. 5. DFD670 of Bow’s EWMA chart by X counts.

25 Group 3
Group 1 Group 4 Group 6
30
20 7 14 Group 2 Group 5
38 49 64
UCL

15
X

10 LCL

0
41
1

11

16

21

26

31

36

51

61
6

46

56

66

represents out of control Subgroup

Fig. 6. A-WD-300 of Bow’s EWMA chart by X counts.

 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220
then, k = 0.3 and n = 2 are set to monitor
and inspect the bow of three diamond cutting
machines (DFD660, DFD670 and A-WD-300).
In this chart, 133 samples are generated while
the process is controlled. The upper and lower
control limits for the EWMA statistics are used
to calculate the bow of three diamond cutting
machines. In Fig. 4, the out-of-control conditions
appear at the 12th, 20th, 33th, 47th and 61th sig-
nals. In Fig. 5, the process is out-of-control at the
19th, 40th and 59th signals. In Fig. 6, the process
is out-of-control at the 7th, 14th, 30th 38th, 49th,
and 64th signals. Unusual operating conditions of
the manufacturing process appear in A-WD-300
diamond cutting machines the most. Such identi-
fication significantly enhances the quality yield
of silicon wafer slicing manufacturing. Conse-
quently, the quality of the EWMA chart for the
bow verifies the analysis results, in which the
FAHP results are the same. Based on the evalua-
tion outcomes, ‘‘A-WD-300’’ is determined to be
the worst performing machine in terms of
precision.
4. Conclusions
In most of the real-world problems, some of the decision
data can be precisely assessed while others cannot. Real
numbers are used to represent data which can be precisely
measured. For those data which cannot be precisely
assessed, fuzzy sets can be used to denote them. The use
of fuzzy set theory allows us to incorporate unquantifiable
information, incomplete information, non-obtainable
information and partially ignorant facts into the decision
model. When decision data are precisely known, they
should not be forced into a fuzzy format in the decision
analysis. Crisp MADM methods solve problems in which
all decision data are assumed to be known and must be rep-
resented by crisp numbers. The methods are to effectively
aggregate performance scores. Fuzzy MADM methods
have difficulty in judging the preferred alternatives because
all aggregated scores are fuzzy data. Therefore, selecting
silicon wafer slicing manufacturing quality system is an
extremely complex issue, often relying on the subjective
assessment of decision makers. In particular, administra-
tors and engineers in semiconductor manufacturing lack
objective decision-making procedures and clearly defined
evaluating criteria. Therefore, this study presents a fuzzy
AHP-based algorithm to determine manufacturing quality
in silicon wafer in order to identify the worst performing
machines in terms of precision. The EWMA control chart
is also adopted to identify the worst performing diamond
cutting machine in terms of precision as the A-WD-300
one. The proposed fuzzy AHP-based algorithm signifi-
cantly contributes to efforts to upgrade manufacturing
quality in silicon wafer slicing. Specifically, the proposed
2219
algorithm can assist semiconductor manufacturers in simi-
lar muilt-criteria questions by offering an objective and sys-
tematic means of selecting the worst performing machine in
terms of precision and increasing the quality yield of silicon
wafer slicing. Final, the proposed procedure allows engi-
neers to rapidly adjust a manufacturing system to eliminate
problematic phenomena and increase slicing quality and
process capability.
References
Alejandro, H. L., Douglas, C. M., George, R., Connie, M. B., & Richard,
I. P. (2001). Performance of customized control charts to detect
process disturbances. Quality and Reliability Engineering International,
17(3), 205–218.
ASTM F534 (1995). Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
ASTM F657 (1995). Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Braha, D., & Shmilovici, A. (2002). Data mining for improving a cleaning
process in the semiconductor industry. IEEE Transactions on Semi-
conductor Manufacturing, 15(1), 91–101.
Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
17, 233–247.
Butler, S. W., & Stefani, J. A. (1994). Supervisory run-to-run control of a
polysilicon gate etch using in situ elliposometry. IEEE Transactions on
Semiconductor Manufacturing, 7(2), 193–201.
Cunningham, S., Spanos, C. J., & Voros, K. (1995). Semiconductor yield
improvement: Results and best practices. IEEE Transactions Semicon-
ductor Manufacturing, 8(2), 103–109.
Ho, C. T. (2004). Strategic evaluation of emerging technologies in the
semiconductor foundry industry (special case: Semiconductor foundry
industry in Taiwan) (pp. 251–278). Portland State University.
Hsu, T. H., & Nian, S. H. (1997). Interactive fuzzy decision aided systems-
a case on public transportation system operations. Journal of Trans-
portation Taiwan, 10(4), 79–96.
Hsu, T. H., & Yang, T. H. (2000). Application of fuzzy analytic hierarch
process in the selection of advertising media. Journal of Management
and Systems, Taiwan, 7(1), 19–39.
Huang, L. C., & Wu, R. Y. H. (2005). Applying fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process in the managerial talent assessment model – an empirical study
in Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. International Journal of Technol-
ogy Management, 30(1–2), 105–130.
Kang, H. Y., & Lee, A. H. I. (2007). Priority mix planning for
semiconductor fabrication by fuzzy AHP ranking. Expert Systems
with Applications, 32(2), 560–570.
Lin, C. T., Chang, C. W., & Chen, C. B. (2004). Focus groups: Impact of
quality and process capability factors on silicon wafer slicing process.
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management,
2(2), 171–184.
Lin, C. T., Chang, C. W., & Chen, C. B. (2005). Relative control
philosophy- balance and continual change for forecasting abnormal
quality characteristics in a silicon wafer slicing process. International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 26(9–10), 1109–1114.
Lin, C. T., Chen, C. B., & Chang, C. W. (2002). Screening synchronously
occurred multiple abnormal quality characteristics screening in a
silicon wafer slicing process. The Asian Journal on Quality, 3(1), 48–60.
Liu, T. S., & Wang, M. J. (1992). Ranking fuzzy numbers with integral
value. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 49(3), 247–255.
Loon, C. T., & Su, E. T. (1999). Computing process capability indices for
non-normal data: a review and comparative study. Quality and
Reliability Engineering International, 15, 339–353.
Lucas, J. M., & Saccussi, M. S. (1992). Exponentially weighted moving
average control charts: properties and enhancements. Technometrics,
32, 1–12.
Murry, J. W., & Hammons, J. O. (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology
for conducting qualitative research. Review of Higher Education, 18(4),
423–436.
2220 C.-W. Chang et al. / Expert Systems with Applications 34 (2008) 2210–2220
Pai, P. F., Lee, C. E., & Su, T. H. (2004). A daily production model for
wafer fabrication. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology
and Management, 23(1–2), 58–63.
Robbins, S. P. (1994). Management. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to mark a decision: The analytic hierarchy
process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.
Saaty, T. L. (1994). The fundamentals of decision making and priority
theory with the analytic hierarchy process. AHP series (Vol. VI).
Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publication, pp. 1–527.
Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority
theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publica-
tions, pp. 1–478.
Sachs, S. E., & Montgomery, D. C. (1996–1997). Process capability indices
and non-normal distributions. Quality Engineering, 7, 305–316.
Sung, W. C. (2001). Application of Delphi method, a qualitative and
quantitative analysis, to the healthcare management. Journal of
Healthcare Management, 2(2), 11–19.
Takeshi, H. (1998). Ultraclean surface processing of silicon wafers: Secrets
of VLSI manufacturing. Springer.
Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined
effects in e-learning programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on
factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications,
32(4), 1028–1044.
Yang, T., Su, C. T., & Hsu, Y. R. (2000). Systematic layout planning: A
study on semiconductor wafer fabrication facilities. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, 20(11), 1360–1372.
Yurdakul, M. (2004). AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify
machine tool selection. Journal of Materials Processing Technology,
146(3), 365–376.
Zadeh, L. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.