Design Thinking Tool – Learning Launch

Challenge

I work in a design engineering group.  One of my main challenges is to problem solve or find solutions to  difficult problems.  In a recent assignment, I was asked to review and recommend a method of  measuring the temperature of silicon wafers in a vacuum chamber without contacting the wafer over  range of 150 to 600 degC.  I had little experience with this kind of technology.  This is not unusual in our  group and why my role is considered “research and design”.  In addition to not understanding the  technology, the customer typically does not communicate all the requirements to be successful.

Selection

Once I have researched the problem and have identified some potential solutions, we go about the  process of determining where to start and how to determine the best solution.  We have found that  doing a learning launch (often called testing or prototyping) is the most efficient and successful method  to getting to a proper design solution.  There are far too many variables that can affect a solution many  of which are not seen until a build integration.  Therefore we often acquire/build a necessary subset of  equipment needed to test ideas or designs in our lab.  In the video, Ed Hesse refers to this as doing  experiments to test multiple hypotheses.  During the course of testing or experimenting much is learned  about the system and how a design will integrate or function.  We also typically get additional feedback  from our customer and learn more about requirements than was initially communicated.  Data  collection can also be involved to help see how things are working together over time and to document  performance.  The process is very iterative meaning many solutions or variations can be tested in a short  period.  This method allows for numerous fast failures and opportunity to prove functionality to our  customer.  This saves time so that when we commit to a final design, we know it’s going to work.  With  few exceptions, it’s the more economical approach.

Application / Insight

Industry solutions exist for using the electromagnetic radiation emitted from an object to determine  it’s temperature.  They are referred to as IR Sensors or Pyrometers.  However, you also need to know  the emissivity of the object to be measured which is a value from 0 to 1 that indicates the percentage of  heat energy that an object will emit.  Unfortunately, silicon emissivity varies with temperature and since  the wafers are reflective there is no effective way to measure it.  In addition wafers are transmissive to  certain wave lengths of light (a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum) and therefore certain  pyrometers would pick up objects radiating from behind.  Pyrometers are typically set for a specific  wavelength and temperature range which limits how they will function per application.  Once I fully  understood the physics involved, I was able to select some pyrometers which “looked like” they would

work within our project budget.  During the research phase, we cobbled together a test chamber using  some existing materials and some of our lab equipment.  I made some modifications and added some  bracketry and viewports to test a variety of pyrometers.  I acquired/borrowed some sample pyrometers  from internal sources and vendors.  We determined to calibrate the pyrometer at a temperature set  point using a test wafer fitted with thermocouples (temperature probes).  This eliminated the problem  of emissivity.  Next, I was able to systematically test the pyrometers and learn what was working the  best and what our limitations would be.  The first pyrometer which should have worked was an utter  failure.  We tried another spectral range in the same brand and that did not work either.  Ultimately, I  found a very economical unit that was set for a broader spectral range 8-14um.  We had to experiment  outside of advice from experts to find something that would work.  During the testing we continually  shared results with our customer.  We were able to agree on performance metrics based on the testing.   The project certainly confirmed how valuable a learning launch is to finding a solution and proper design  methodology.

Approach

In this particular project it was obvious that we needed to do lots of experiments because we had very  little experience or even confidence in what could be done.  The amount of learning and information we  gathered for the project more than justified the effort to build our test stand and conduct the  experiments.  On occasion a solution may be more obvious.  We often have customers who want a quick  and dirty solution.  Sometimes they will just say all you need to do is “this”.  We are careful to explain to  them what the issues are if we just did as asked.  We are typically able to convince them on some level  of experimenting/testing.  Seasoned engineers know how critical the learning launch is.

Elements:

1. Challenge: Describe your challenge, including all relevant information.

2. Selection: In your own words, briefly describe the tool you selected (e.g., what it is and why you

selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references).

3. Application: Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge (e.g., what you did

and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively).

4. Insight: Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your challenge (e.g.,

how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about design thinking more broadly).

5. Approach: Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected

or a different one -- and the reason(s) why.

Notes:

The rubric also includes a score for organization. You should strive to write in a clear and compelling  way, and ensure that your descriptions flow logically.

Your completed reflection should be written in English and be between five and ten paragraphs in  length. When complete, you will upload your reflection (PDF file only) for peer review, which will  determine your grade for this assignment. After uploading your reflection, you will be prompted to  review three of your peers' submissions.

To pass this assignment, your peers must score your reflection an average of two or above, based  on the rubric criteria. To successfully complete the course, you must complete your peer reviews  and pass this assignment.


Design Thinking Tool – Learning Launch Challenge I work in a design engineering group . One of my main challenges is to problem solve or find solutions to difficult problems . In a recent assignment , I was asked to review and recommend a method of measuring the temperature of silicon wafers in a vacuum chamber without contacting the wafer over range of 150 to 600 degC. I had little experience with this kind of technology . This is not unusual in our group and why my role is considered “ research and design ” . In addition to not understanding the technology , the customer typically does not communicate all the requirements to be successful . Selection Once I have researched the problem and have identified some potential solutions , we go about the process of determining where to start and how to determine the best solution . We have found that doing a learning launch ( often called testing or prototyping ) is the most efficient and successful method to getting to a proper design solution . There are far too many variables that can affect a solution many of which are not seen until a build integration . Therefore we often acquire / build a necessary subset of equipment needed to test ideas or designs in our lab . In the video , Ed Hesse refers to this as doing experiments to test multiple hypotheses . During the course of testing or experimenting much is learned about the system and how a design will integrate or function . We also typically get additional feedback from our customer and learn more about requirements than was initially communicated . Data collection can also be involved to help see how things are working together over time and to document performance . The process is very iterative meaning many solutions or variations can be tested in a short period . This method allows for numerous fast failures and opportunity to prove functionality to our customer . This saves time so that when we commit to a final design , we know it ’s going to work . With few exceptions , it ’s the more economical approach . Application / Insight Industry solutions exist for using the electromagnetic radiation emitted from an object to determine it ’s temperature . They are referred to as IR Sensors or Pyrometers . However , you also need to know the emissivity of the object to be measured which is a value from 0 to 1 that indicates the percentage of heat energy that an object will emit . Unfortunately , silicon emissivity varies with temperature and since the wafers are reflective there is no effective way to measure it . In addition wafers are transmissive to certain wave lengths of light ( a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum ) and therefore certain pyrometers would pick up objects radiating from behind . Pyrometers are typically set for a specific wavelength and temperature range which limits how they will function per application . Once I fully understood the physics involved , I was able to select some pyrometers which “ looked like ” they would work within our project budget . During the research phase , we cobbled together a test chamber using some existing materials and some of our lab equipment . I made some modifications and added some bracketry and viewports to test a variety of pyrometers . I acquired / borrowed some sample pyrometers from internal sources and vendors . We determined to calibrate the pyrometer at a temperature set point using a test wafer fitted with thermocouples ( temperature probes ) . This eliminated the problem of emissivity . Next , I was able to systematically test the pyrometers and learn what was working the best and what our limitations would be . The first pyrometer which should have worked was an utter failure . We tried another spectral range in the same brand and that did not work either . Ultimately , I found a very economical unit that was set for a broader spectral range 8 - 14um . We had to experiment outside of advice from experts to find something that would work . During the testing we continually shared results with our customer . We were able to agree on performance metrics based on the testing . The project certainly confirmed how valuable a learning launch is to finding a solution and proper design methodology . Approach In this particular project it was obvious that we needed to do lots of experiments because we had very little experience or even confidence in what could be done . The amount of learning and information we gathered for the project more than justified the effort to build our test stand and conduct the experiments . On occasion a solution may be more obvious . We often have customers who want a quick and dirty solution . Sometimes they will just say all you need to do is “ this ” . We are careful to explain to them what the issues are if we just did as asked . We are typically able to convince them on some level of experimenting / testing . Seasoned engineers know how critical the learning launch is . Elements : 1 . Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . 2 . Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and why you selected it for your challenge -- including any appropriate video lecture references ) . 3 . Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . 4 . Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about design thinking more broadly ) . 5 . Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time -- applying the same tool you selected or a different one -- and the reason(s ) why . Notes : The rubric also includes a score for organization . You should strive to write in a clear and compelling way , and ensure that your descriptions flow logically . Your completed reflection should be written in English and be between five and ten paragraphs in length . When complete , you will upload your reflection ( PDF file only ) for peer review , which will determine your grade for this assignment . After uploading your reflection , you will be prompted to review three of your peers ' submissions . To pass this assignment , your peers must score your reflection an average of two or above , based on the rubric criteria . To successfully complete the course , you must complete your peer reviews and pass this assignment .