IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 12, NO.
3, AUGUST 1999
Dynamic Bottleneck Control in
Wide Variety Production Factory
Tomohito Nakata, Koichi Matsui, Yasuhisa Miyake, and Kyusaku Nishioka
Abstract At a factory which produces a wide variety of
products such as ASICs or microcomputers, it is necessary
to detect any machine causing a bottleneck and return it to
a high level of performance for fast and effective production.
This paper introduces a workflow control system called JUS-
TICE/MORAL (just time process control system/method of
optimum-buffer restriction and adjustment logic) which dynam-
ically detects a machine causing a bottleneck and feeds work to
that machine at an appropriate time.
The advantages of this system are as follows: 1) manufacturing
cycle time can be reduced by an average of 13% and a maximum
of 50% and 2) throughput can be increased up to approximately
10%. Part of this system has been installed in our factory. We
have seen that factory cycle time improved approximately 20%
in the two month period from July to September 1998. Also, the
machine causing the bottleneck was found quickly; as a result,
the utilization of this machine increased by 3%.
Index TermsJob release control, production planning, sched-
uling, semiconductor manufacturing, system modeling and sim-
ulation.
I. INTRODUCTION
S EMICONDUCTOR manufacturing is one of the most
complex manufacturing processes found today. This com-
plexity is, in part, the result of the constant miniaturization
of various devices, the intricacy of the process, product di-
versity, uncertainty due to external factors, and changing
technologies. In addition, semiconductor wafer fabrication
requires the repetitive use of several similar processes. The
machines performing these operations are costly; thus, the
economic necessity of reducing capital outlays dictates that
such expensive machines be shared by all lots requiring the
particular processing operation provided by the machine, even
though those lots may be of different processing stages in
their manufacturing life. This makes production planning and
control in semiconductor wafer fabrication complicated.
In this paper, we focus on the problem of production line
control in a factory which produces a wide variety of products.
This factory, which is a microcomputer and ASIC factory, is
not a leading-edge factory as it was established 12 years ago.
This type of factory has the following features:
Manuscript received December 7, 1998; revised April 5, 1999.
T. Nakata is with Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Manufacturing Engineer-
ing Center, Hyogo 661-8661, Japan (e-mail: nakata@mfe.mdl.melco.co.jp).
K. Matsui, Y. Miyake, and K. Nishioka are with Mitsubishi
Electric Corporation, Kochi Factory, Kochi 781-5332, Japan (e-
mail: matsuiko@mpl.koch.melco.co.jp; nishioka@mpl.koch.melco.co.jp;
miyake@isd.koch.melco.co.jp).
Publisher Item Identifier S 0894-6507(99)06368-X.
08946507/99$10.00 1999 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
273
1) there are few new machines, and the process technology
is matured;
2) as a result of capital depreciation, utilization of the
current equipment is cost effective;
3) most machines are reliable.
Accordingly, the machines are kept in a state of high
throughput to the greatest extent possible. On the other hand,
this type of factory often has to meet the challenges described
below:
4) many different types of products are fabricated in small
lot sizes;
5) the product-mix changes radically both in terms of type
and quantity;
6) the location of new machines is restricted by the current
facility layout; as a result, a complete job-shop form is
hard to maintain;
7) work is transported from shop to shop by both an
automated interbay transfer system and operators.
This degree of variability makes the control of the traditional
semiconductor production even more difficult. Thus, there
is a strong need for a system that can respond to diverse
changes in customers demands more quickly than ever. In
such circumstances, the demand to reduce manufacturing cycle
time (cycle time is defined as the time a particular lot spends in
the factory) is steadily increasing. It is therefore necessary to
detect any machines causing a bottleneck in order to obtain a
high level of performance for fast and effective production. In
cases in which a sufficient amount of work-in-process (WIP)
is not supplied to the bottlenecks, their throughput decreases
due to the machines being idle. On the other hand, too
much WIP causes a lengthening of manufacturing cycle time
[1], [9]. Our previous review of pertinent literature clarified
that a bottleneck machine was defined by its process speed,
efficiency, and downtime variability [14]. However, the factory
is not designed for the current product-mix. As a result, the
change of product-mix creates imbalances in the production
line. In addition, the possibility exists that the demand may
decrease after wafer input. This change causes an imbalance in
the WIP level and the machine load. It is difficult to detect the
bottleneck machine in this situation because the quota given to
each machine changes to such a large degree that the machine
causing the bottleneck (i.e., its quota is more than its own
capacity) frequently changes as shown in Fig. 1. With Photo
Type 3, for example, bottlenecks have appeared frequently
over a two month period of due to changes in the product
mix.
274
Fig. 1. Product mix effects on the bottleneck.
Fig. 2. Framework of dynamic bottleneck control.
The first purpose of this research is to propose a new method
for effective production control which can deal with changes
in the bottlenecks.
In order to deal with the real production problem of which
lot to assign next, it is necessary to take the human factor
into account. If the factory is fully automated, a computer
system generates job scheduling and gives orders directly to a
manufacturing system through network. However, if operators
in a specific area decide which lot to process next, it is
very important for operators the order is simple and easily to
understand. The second purpose of this research is to propose
a manufacturing direction and execution system which can
solve the problem of bottlenecks.
At a factory which produces a wide variety of products,
we are introducing the workflow control system called JUS-
TICE/MORAL (just timing process control system/method
of optimum-buffer restriction and adjustment logic) which
dynamically detects a machine causing a bottleneck and feeds
work to the machine at the appropriate time.
Section II provides a review of past studies conducted on
production planning and the control of semiconductor wafer
manufacturing at variety production factories. Section III ana-
lyzes bottlenecks at variety production factories and introduces
Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 12, NO. 3, AUGUST 1999
Fig. 3. Outline of the dynamic bottleneck control system JUSTICE/
MORAL.
a system that helps eliminate such bottlenecks correspond to
different situations. Section IV introduces a simple method for
providing instructions to operators using the concept of Hot
Lots. Section V introduces JUSTICE/MORAL a system
which implements the ideas discussed in previous sections.
Finally, Section VI reports on the improvements achieved
through the use of JUSTICE/MORAL.
II. PREVIOUS STUDY
Production planning and control of semiconductor wafer
manufacturing is extremely complicated and particularly dif-
ficult. The development of production planning and control
in a semiconductor wafer factory is still a very challenging
research topic. Major production control issues include:
1) input of raw wafers into the line;
2) daily scheduling;
NAKATA et al.: DYNAMIC BOTTLENECK CONTROL IN WIDE VARIETY PRODUCTION FACTORY
Fig. 4. GUI of extracting candidates for the bottleneck.
3) lot dispatching to determine which lot to process when
a machine becomes available [3].
The primary goal of wafer input is to control the level of
WIP and cycle times. It is calculated using a day or a week
as a time unit over a long time span of two to four months.
As a results, daily or weekly wafer outputs (i.e., production
targets) can also be determined. Many previous approaches
have attempted to resolve bottleneck issues. Glassey and
Resende [1] presented a starvation avoidance (SA) rule and
Wein [5] demonstrated a workload regulation (WR) rule. The
difference between SA and WR is that Glassey and Resende
only consider work that will arrive at the bottleneck within
the time required to feed new work to the machine where
the bottleneck has occurred, whereas Wein considers the total
work content (of any lots on the line) which will be supplied
with the bottleneck machine. These two studies, however, do
not address the cases that involve dynamic changes in the
conditions that produce bottlenecks. Lu, Ramaswamy, and
Kumar [2] have shown that smoothing the flow of work within
the line can lead to substantial improvements in both the mean
as well as the standard deviation of the cycle time. However,
the effectiveness of this method is questionable when it is
applied at a variety production factory. In yet a different
study, Glassey et al. [7] present linear control rules. Here,
they deal with the issue of reducing the cycle time for the
mass production of a single product. It is not clear, however,
that the given rules could sufficiently respond to changes in
the product mix dynamically.
Lot dispatching prioritizes processes on the shop floor in
order to respond appropriately to line status changes in real
time [4]. Connors et al. [8] focused on the issue of whats
Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
275
next scheduling, which specifies the order of lots processed
at each machine group. Similar articles are numerous in
the existing literature. Lu and Kumar [6] analyzed several
dispatching rules for a large semiconductor production line.
It would be difficult, however, to challenge bottlenecks issues
in diverse situations only through lot dispatching control.
Daily scheduling provides a bridge between these two
aforementioned functions, and breaks daily production targets
into a production schedule in a time span of 13 h over a day.
This, in turn, serves as a guideline for dispatching. The need
for effective coordination of daily operations in a production
line is significant [3]. There are some approaches which
address this issue of controlling daily operations in multiple
layers. Bechte [10] describes the principles of load-oriented
manufacturing control which is useful in identifying bottle-
necks. This control rule has three planning levels: order entry
and mid-term capacity planning; order release and short-term
capacity planning and operation sequencing. Fargher et al.
[11] describe two closely related CIM (computer-integrated-
manufacturing) subsystems used to manage production con-
trol: MMST planner and scheduler. Akella et al. [12] report
on the performance of hierarchical production scheduling
policy. These studies are concerned with the implementation
of workflow control in multiple layers. However, little atten-
tion has been given to the investigation of how to control
bottlenecks while paying attention to the factors underlying
their occurrence and the cycle in which they occur. Nishimura
[14] states that it is possible to divide all machines into four
different classifications based on the type of bottleneck. In
turn, bottlenecks are classified according to their downtime
variability and the speed of processing wafers. However, this
276 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 12, NO. 3, AUGUST 1999

research seems to have not considered the effect of the change

of product-mix on the bottleneck.

III. BOTTLENECK ANALISIS

Bottlenecks are caused by various situational changes such
as sudden machine breakdowns, delay in work progress,
nonscheduled machine maintenance, and the change of product
mix. We classify these factors in terms of their frequency or
action cycle and investigate the best way to respond to the
bottleneck problem. An example of a bottleneck and a way to
resolve it are shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 5. Example of standard time table.
We thought that bottlenecks can not be completely fixed at
anytime; because they occur as the result of a wide variety
of different situations. In order to avoid bottlenecks, dynamic
control, such as the real time dispatching rule, the WIP
restriction, and wafer input control, is required.
The cause of bottlenecks is classified into the following
three cases according to their appearance cycles.
Case 1The Appearance of Long-Cycled Bottlenecks: In
this case, the maximum capacity during stable operation is
less than the norm (i.e., the quota which must be processed)
at each machine. In this phase, the bottleneck appears because
of reasons such as product-mix variability, change of process Fig. 6. Example of daily policy (leveling WIP strategy).
design, and setting up a new machine. Thus, the candidate
for a bottleneck must be kept operating at a high level, and
therefore, it is necessary that wafer input timing be controlled, operators is Hot Lots handling. Hot Lots are defined as work
the machines be well maintained, and machine capacity be which has been designated as having the highest priority in a
improved. factory in terms of reducing their cycle time [13]. All other
Case 2The Appearance of Midcycled Bottlenecks: In this work is known as regular lots. First, operators check to see
case, the maximum capacity is more than the norm, but the which jobs have Hot Lots, and then they begin to process these
WIP queue will often occur over the course of several days. lots. Therefore, operators must be able to easily determine
In this phase, bottlenecks occur because, for example, there is whether any work has been designated as Hot Lots. Hot
a decrease in demand from customers or a request for early Lots indicator is usually attached on each carrying case,
delivery after wafers have already been input. It is necessary or is displayed on the monitor in manufacturing line. We
to avoid making long queue, to clear it. propose a method utilizing this principle of Hot Lots to
Case 3The Appearance of Short-Cycled Bottlenecks: In realize a manufacturing system can control bottlenecks. All
this final case, work can not proceed on schedule due to sudden work are classified into three types: a) quick-turnaround-
machine breakdowns. Thus, it is necessary that replanning of time (QTAT) lots designated as RAPID, b) normal lots
the workflow policy be accomplished in real-time. designated as NORMAL, and c) low priority lots designated
We propose a system that uses three different processes as SUSPENDED. Lots are reassigned to these classes in real-
in order to address different types of changes described in time according to bottleneck status change. The lot processing
the above three cases. The first process concerns forecasting order for each machine is not calculated in the first step; rather,
situational changes and then planning accordingly. The second instructions to hurry up or not is provided for every lot.
process involves scheduling daily work and planning daily
policy when the bottleneck changes. The third is the process V. OUTLINE OF JUSTICE/MORAL
that reflects daily policy in production efficiently and in a
JUSTICE/MORAL has three major parts. The first is
timely manner. The utilization of these three processes allows
a phased adjustment process function which estimates or
different responses to bottlenecks which appear under different
predicts changes in bottleneck situations and plans corrective
conditions.
actions. This is combined with a function which gives pro-
duction orders for individual lot after considering the effect of
IV. SIMPLE DIRECTION the corrective actions. The second is a function which controls
The method of ordering direction to carry out manufacturing individual lot speed dynamically and offers a framework for;
is extremely important. In a fully automated factory, an order the third part, which is the execution of manufacturing orders.
of a schedule can be easily directed to automation system. The phased adjustment process function uses three control
However, in a case of which operators decide which lot is processes. The first is a monthly/weekly control process which
to be processed next, it is important to simplify the order to addresses long-term changes such as changes in the product
be easily understood. One of the most simple directions for mix. The second is a daily control process which addresses

Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
NAKATA et al.: DYNAMIC BOTTLENECK CONTROL IN WIDE VARIETY PRODUCTION FACTORY 277

Fig. 7. Dispatching logic in MORAL rule.

midterm changes such as day-to-day production delays caused

by, e.g., machine maintenance. Finally, a real time control
is utilized in order to respond to short-term changes such as
delays caused by sudden machine failure. The combination
of these three different control processes allows to effec-
tively buffer the changes in bottleneck conditions arising from
different causes.
An outline of JUSTICE/MORAL is shown in Fig. 3.

A. Phased Adjustment Process to Changes In Bottlenecks

1) Monthly/Weekly Control Process: Two different mod-
ules achieve this process. The first module predicts changes
in the product mix, simulates future changes in bottleneck
conditions, and detects possible locations of bottlenecks.
Fig. 8 Architecture of dynamic speed control.
In consideration of changes in the timings of deliveries
requested by customers and after accounting for the need
TABLE I
to give adequate instructions regarding machines that can LOT SPEED MATRIX
potentially produce a bottleneck, the second module optimizes
the standard weekly production volume.
a) The module for extracting candidates for the bottleneck:
JUSTICE/MORAL simulates the influence of the machine
load caused by changes in customer demand, and then extracts
a group of machines which are candidates for a bottleneck. The
result of this forecast is displayed on the monitor as shown in norm in order to determine what would be suitable load for
Fig. 4 to support the implementation of an improvement plan. a bottleneck candidate. Moreover, it calculates the standard
The upper display portion of this GUI (graphical user progress. Fig. 5 shows an example of the progress timetable.
interface) allows to specify of simulation parameters, while The total process flow is divided into sequential steps in which
the lower portion displays the outcome of the simulation the processes have the same standard day.
performed using the specified parameters. 2) Daily Control Process:
b) The module for planning the values of the weekly stan- The module for focusing on the bottleneck: Based on the
dard: JUSTICE/MORAL plans the values of a weekly weekly standard and the production conditions up to the
standard (e.g., the progress timetable and the quota for each previous day, JUSTICE/MORAL focuses on the bottleneck
machine) and decides the input time into the line in order machine. The bottleneck machine may change every day.
to prevent the occurrence of a bottleneck. And, it plans the An unexpected machine failure or a decrease of process

Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
278
Fig. 9. Comparison between MORAL and FIFO (WIP/throughput of the bottleneck).
throughput causes a long queue at a machine. Moving this WIP
to the standard step is the purpose of this procedure. Therefore,
it is necessary to plan a daily policy against bottlenecks
based on the followings; skilled operators bottleneck strategy
in which the WIP does not pile up in front of a certain
machine, the supply of work to a machine causing a bottleneck
is reduced in consideration of regular maintenance of the
machine, or the progress of a specific lot is hastened. Fig. 6
shows an example of the daily policy. The factors are
automatically calculated.
3) Real Time Control Process:
The module for controlling work at the bottleneck:
JUSTICE/MORAL calculates the appropriate amount of
WIP should be kept in front of each machine in real time,
feeds the appropriate work into the machine, and controls
the workflow based on the daily policy. A simple example
is shown in Fig. 7. Machine , which currently has no
work, is the bottleneck. JUSTICE/MORAL synchronizes
the bottleneck condition with all the machines in the lines,
and controls the progress speed of all lots. This permits more
intelligent control throughout the entire line than what can
be achieved utilizing a conventional dispatching rule (i.e.,
FIFO: first in first out).
B. Dynamic Speed Control System of Individual Lots
A MORAL rule directs the progress speed of each lot
in real time. The architecture is shown in Fig. 8. This is a
classification method based on the progress status of the lot and
the bottleneck status of the machine for a certain time interval
before dispatching work to each machine. The machines and
operators in the line execute the manufacturing orders which
are sorted by speed. These directions are visibly indicated on
their carrying case.
1) Progress Status Standard: Each lot is classified into one
of three categories based on information from the progress
timetable about the processing target and the customer delivery
date. The categories are ADVANCED, JUST IN TIME,
and BEHIND. For example, the lot which is more than
two days behind the standard time table is categorized into
the BEHIND class, and the lot that is more than three
days in advance into the ADVANCED class. The lot which
does not fit in those two categories is classified as JUST
IN TIME. Each lot is classified into one of these categories.
This classification is independent of the status of a machine;
whether it is in operation or not.
Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 12, NO. 3, AUGUST 1999
Fig. 10. Simulation results (cycle time).
2) Bottleneck Status Standard: Each machine is classified
into one of three categories based on information about the
machines capacity, the quota, and the current amount of
WIP. The categories are CROWDED, PROPER, and
HUNGRY. For example, a machine will be classified as
CROWDED if the amount of WIP readily available is
equal to or larger than the machines daily quota. A machine
is classified as HUNGRY if the amount of WIP readily
available is equal to or less than the machines correspond
to four-hour process time capacity. The rest are classified as
PROPER. Each machine is classified independently.
3) Final Decision of Individual Lot Speed: Finally, each
lot is assigned one of three speed classifications using the lot
speed matrix (Table I). The three classifications are RAPID,
NORMAL, and SUSPENDED. The speed is decided by
the progress status of each lot and the bottleneck status of
the machine that is scheduled on the process route of each
lot. Furthermore, the speed classification is updated at certain
intervals (e.g., every 4 h) according to status changes in the
line. Work is fed to each machine based on the dispatching
rule of each speed classification. RAPID is higher priority than
NORMAL, and lots which are classified as SUSPENDED are
not allocated to a machine. The work can be effectively fed
to the bottleneck utilizing this method.
C. The Execution of the Manufacturing Order
Orders are transmitted to various manufacturing resources
including the automatic processing equipment, the interbay
transfer system, AGVs (automated guided vehicles), and
the storage rack. These machines automatically process the
most appropriate work according to the order. Operators for
the manual-processing machines are informed of the orders
through operation instructions, which are displayed on the
NAKATA et al.: DYNAMIC BOTTLENECK CONTROL IN WIDE VARIETY PRODUCTION FACTORY
Fig. 11. Simulation results (throughput).
Fig. 12. Our cycle time improvement from July to September 1998.
monitor screen by the line. Operators can readily receive
information about their next task.
VI. EFFECT OF JUSTICE/MORAL INTRODUCTION
The following effects are expected based on simulations
in which the whole system was utilized. The simulation was
modeled using actual data about the line. Two different control
methods, the FIFO rule and the MORAL rule, were compared.
The results of the simulation appear in the queue length of each
machine. Fig. 9 shows a comparison between MORAL and
FIFO (WIP/throughput of the machine causing the bottleneck).
MORAL tended to retain WIP near bottleneck machines in
order to avoid idle time. The conventional workflow control
system, which uses only one policy, could not respond to
the various changes in the bottlenecks. Therefore, WIP is
unleveled everywhere in the line. The JUSTICE/MORAL
system decides workflow policy in all phases from the plan-
ning values of the weekly standard which are based on the
long range forecast. The system then extracts candidates for a
bottleneck, focuses the bottleneck strategy after considering
the WIP level, and dispatches the work to the bottleneck.
MORAL feeds only the necessary amount of WIP to each
machine, with dynamically considering the quota, the capacity
and the queue length. As a result, manufacturing cycle time
was reduced by 13% as shown in Fig. 10 (50% for a certain
product), and throughput became 10% higher than in the
conventional workflow control method (see Fig. 11).
As a result, cycle time of the entire line will be improved be-
cause work will be supplied to each machine when necessary.
JUSTICE/MORAL manages the line to keep the required
standard WIP level without decreasing throughput.
Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
279
Part of this system has been introduced to our factory.
At the same time, other improvements such as increased
machine operating time, better process design, and increases
in operators skills are continuing; therefore, it is difficult to
distinguish the effect of the introduction of this system from
other activities. However, the system enabled the machine
causing a bottleneck to be found rapidly, so utilization of this
machine improved by 3%. Moreover, cycle time was improved
approximately by 20% for two months from July to September
1998 (see Fig. 12).
VII. CONCLUSION
We have proposed a new workflow control system called
JUSTICE/MORAL. This system can detect the exact ma-
chine causing a bottleneck through three phases. All work
movements are controlled by keeping an appropriate level of
WIP in the bottleneck machine. A standard level of WIP is
dynamically calculated for the machine currently experiencing
a bottleneck. The WIP level in that machine is then managed in
order to maintain a standard amount of WIP. This establishes
maximum throughput with minimum manufacturing cycle
time. The advantages of the system are as follows:
1) manufacturing cycle time can be reduced by an average
of 13% and a maximum of 50%;
2) throughput can be increased up to approximately 10%.
Part of this system has been installed in our factory. We have
had the following results:
3) cycle time improved approximately by 20% in the two
month period from July to September 1998;
4) the machine causing the bottleneck was found quickly;
as a result, the utilization of this machine increased by
3%.
REFERENCES
[1] C. R. Glassey and G. C. M. Resende, Closed-loop job release control
for VLSI circuit manufacturing, IEEE Trans. Semiconduct. Manufact.,
vol. 1, pp. 3646, Feb. 1988.
[2] S. C. H. Lu, D. Ramaswamy, and P. R. Kumar, Efficient scheduling
policies to reduce mean and variance of cycle-time in semiconductor
manufacturing plants, IEEE Trans. Semiconduct. Manufact., vol. 7, pp.
374388, Feb. 1994.
[3] D. Y. Liao, S. C. Chang, K. W. Pei, and C. M. Chang, Daily sched-
uling for R&D semiconductor fabrication, IEEE Trans. Semiconduct.
Manufact., vol. 9, pp. 550561, Feb. 1996.
[4] J. E. Dayhoff and R. W. Atherton, Signature analysis of dispatch
schemes in wafer fabrication, IEEE Trans. Comp., Hybrids, Manufact.
Technol., vol. CHMT-9, pp. 518525, Dec. 1986.
280 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING, VOL. 12, NO. 3, AUGUST 1999

[5] L. M. Wein, Scheduling semiconductor wafer fabrication, IEEE Trans. Koichi Matsui received the B. E. degree from the
Semiconduct. Manufact., vol. 1, pp. 115130, Aug. 1988. Science University of Tokyo, Japan, in 1986.
[6] S. H. Lu and P. R. Kumar, Distributed scheduling based on due He joined the Production System Engineering
dates and buffer priorities, IEEE Trans. Automat. Contr., vol. 36, pp. Section, Kochi Factory, Mitsubishi Electric Corpo-
14061416, Dec. 1991. ration, Kochi, Japan, where he has been engaged
[7] C. R. Glassey, J. G. Shanthikumar, and S. Seshadri, Linear con- in research and development of production control
trol rules for production control of semiconductor fabs, IEEE Trans. system.
Semiconduct. Manufact., vol. 9, pp. 536549, Feb. 1996.
[8] D. Connors, G. Feigin, and D. Yao, Scheduling semiconductor lines
using a fluid network model, IEEE Trans. Robot. Automat., vol. 10,
pp. 88, Apr. 1994.
[9] L. M. Wein, On the relationship between yield and cycle time in
semiconductor wafer fabrication, IEEE Trans. Semiconduct. Manufact.,
vol. 5, pp. 156158, May 1992.
[10] W. Bechte, Theory and practice of load-oriented manufacturing con-
trol, Int. J. Prod. Res., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 375395, 1988.
[11] H. E. Fargher, M. A. Kilgore, P. J. Kline, and R. A. Smith, A Yasuhisa Miyake received the B.S. degree from
planner and scheduler for semiconductor manufacturing, IEEE Trans. Kochi University, Kochi, Japan, in 1986.
Semiconduct. Manufact., vol. 7, pp. 117126, May 1994. He is an Assistant Manager in the Kochi System
[12] R. Akella, Y. Choong, and S. B. Gershwin, Performance of hierarchical Section, Ryoden Semiconductor System Engineer-
production scheduling policy, IEEE Trans. Comp., Hybrids, Manufact. ing Corporation, Kochi, Japan.
Technol., vol. CHMT-7, pp. 225240, Sept. 1984.
[13] B. Ehteshami, R. G. Petrakian, and P. M. Shabe, Trade-offs in cycle
time management: Hot lots, IEEE Trans. Semiconduct. Manufact., vol.
5, pp. 101106, May 1992.
[14] M. Nishimura, Strategic inventory control for stable production, in
Proc. ISSM97, pp. A-1A-4.

Tomohito Nakata received the B.E. degree in in-
dustrial engineering from Osaka Prefecture Univer-
sity, Osaka, Japan, in 1991.
In 1991, he joined the Manufacturing Engineer-
ing Center, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Hyogo,
Japan, where he has been engaged in research and
development of production control and scheduling
system. His recent interests are in the areas of manu-
facturing system flow control, job-shop scheduling,
and communication network analysis using queuing
models.
Kyusaku Nishioka received the B.S. degree in
physical chemistry and the Ph.D. degree from Osaka
University, Osaka, Japan, in 1970 and 1977.
From 1977 to 1980, he was with VLSI Labora-
tory, Kanagawa, Japan. Currently, he is with Kochi
Factory, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Kochi,
Japan. His research interests have been in the ar-
eas of microelectronics, process engineering, and
production control.

Authorized licensed use limited to: SUNY Buffalo. Downloaded on February 1, 2009 at 02:47 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.