Tuning Beam for Coursera - design Thinking for Innovation

When tuning beam on an ion implanter, it can be difficult to achieve the desired outcome.  There are  many inputs, many manipulations of the system, and several desired outputs.  Before an ion implanter is  signed off or accepted at a customer site, a technician must prove that the tool can perform as  promised.  To be more specific for our purposes only, the beam must reach a specific maximum current  and we will be investigating the beam shape as a possible cause of not reaching the maximum current.

The tool I wish to describe is Visualization.  There are already many cues from the software on the  operator interface, but understanding them and “seeing” what the beam is doing in your mind’s eye can  really help when trying to get the tool to attain that maximum beam current.  The tool measures many  different things at different points in the beamline and interpreting these measurements can help the  technician pinpoint the weak link in the beam tuning.

The application of the visualization tool should work like this.  The technician can look at the final  beam measurements.  How close is the beam to the desired current?  Assuming the beam injection  setup is close to a historically good beam, the technician must dig deeper.  What does the beam shape  look like?  Is it too wide, too tall?  Now the technician must visualize where in the beamline the beam is  tuned for the specific shape that is outside of normal operating conditions.  The technician can now  increase the voltage on the suspected tuning optic and check the beam shape again.  Did the beam  shape change?  In the desired direction?  The technician can use these visualization techniques to tune  specific parts of the beam with much more certainty than guessing and checking.

The insight the technician can gain from implementing the visualization tool is more confidence as the  beams are tuned with more ease and at much faster paces.  The technician will be able to independently  check their assumptions and develop a firmer understanding of what the beam may look like and what  kind of adjustments will affect it and to what degree.

At this point, we want to weigh our options on using another approach from our toolbox.  Our clever  technician was already using the Learning Launch when trying to manipulate the beam after the  visualization exercise.  The technician was trying to pinpoint the most likely element to adjust while  visualizing the beam and then running an experiment to see if the adjustment worked or not.

If we had tried to use Mind Mapping instead of Visualization, the technician could have had similar  results.  After identifying how the beam should be manipulated, the technician could have made a list or  diagram of the different things that can be adjusted.  From there, each adjustment could be categorized  by how it is supposed to affect the beam.  By categorizing each as position, angle, or size, the technician  could then pick from a shortened list to make the desired adjustments.

Determining which tools is more effective probably depends more on the personal experience of the  technician.  With a more advanced understanding of the tool, the technician can probably visualize it  better.  If visualization is difficult, Mind Mapping is probably more fail safe, but more time consuming to  implement.


Tuning Beam for Coursera - design Thinking for Innovation When tuning beam on an ion implanter , it can be difficult to achieve the desired outcome . There are many inputs , many manipulations of the system , and several desired outputs . Before an ion implanter is signed off or accepted at a customer site , a technician must prove that the tool can perform as promised . To be more specific for our purposes only , the beam must reach a specific maximum current and we will be investigating the beam shape as a possible cause of not reaching the maximum current . The tool I wish to describe is Visualization . There are already many cues from the software on the operator interface , but understanding them and “ seeing ” what the beam is doing in your mind ’s eye can really help when trying to get the tool to attain that maximum beam current . The tool measures many different things at different points in the beamline and interpreting these measurements can help the technician pinpoint the weak link in the beam tuning . The application of the visualization tool should work like this . The technician can look at the final beam measurements . How close is the beam to the desired current ? Assuming the beam injection setup is close to a historically good beam , the technician must dig deeper . What does the beam shape look like ? Is it too wide , too tall ? Now the technician must visualize where in the beamline the beam is tuned for the specific shape that is outside of normal operating conditions . The technician can now increase the voltage on the suspected tuning optic and check the beam shape again . Did the beam shape change ? In the desired direction ? The technician can use these visualization techniques to tune specific parts of the beam with much more certainty than guessing and checking . The insight the technician can gain from implementing the visualization tool is more confidence as the beams are tuned with more ease and at much faster paces . The technician will be able to independently check their assumptions and develop a firmer understanding of what the beam may look like and what kind of adjustments will affect it and to what degree . At this point , we want to weigh our options on using another approach from our toolbox . Our clever technician was already using the Learning Launch when trying to manipulate the beam after the visualization exercise . The technician was trying to pinpoint the most likely element to adjust while visualizing the beam and then running an experiment to see if the adjustment worked or not . If we had tried to use Mind Mapping instead of Visualization , the technician could have had similar results . After identifying how the beam should be manipulated , the technician could have made a list or diagram of the different things that can be adjusted . From there , each adjustment could be categorized by how it is supposed to affect the beam . By categorizing each as position , angle , or size , the technician could then pick from a shortened list to make the desired adjustments . Determining which tools is more effective probably depends more on the personal experience of the technician . With a more advanced understanding of the tool , the technician can probably visualize it better . If visualization is difficult , Mind Mapping is probably more fail safe , but more time consuming to implement .