Post by Drew Holness on Feb 11, 2016 7:20:54 GMT
After reviewing the readings and watching the video I was most inclined to analyze my own personal ability to “identify hidden facts and assumptions” and to “consistently engage in metacognitive” exercises. All are useful tools in my continuous effort to improve my critical thinking skills. However, some baggage counterproductive to critical thinking such as “inherited opinion” has clouded my judgment in the past.
Many years ago I spent thirteen months on a training assignment at Intel’s Portland Technology Development (PTD). I decided to focus my ion implant training on Applied Material (AMAT) implanters instead of the Varian implanters. My decision was mainly based on my close working relationship with the Group Leader (GL) and the fact that I was highly impressed with his knowledge on ion implanters. All the full time workers at PTD minimum level of education is a PHD so they were regarded as the best of the best, so-to-speak. My GL was a strong advocate for the AMAT toolset and during my training he would often point out it’s differences over the Varian toolset. AMAT implanters are considered high current and Varian are considered medium current and my GL was instrumental in convincing my factory to purchase a majority of high current implanters because they are the tools of the future.
A year after the completion of my training my factory regretted the decision to purchase those specific high current implanters because they required a significant amount of maintenance when compared to the Varian implanters. Additionally, over the course of time we also discovered that the Varian implanters were more stable in the same overlapping current range. Since then, my GL went to wok for AMAT, and AMAT bought out Varian and our newer factories were stocked with the Varian implanters over the AMAT.
Lessons learned from that outcome is that it was a rush to judgment based on my GL’s biases for the AMAT toolset and we did not do our due diligence researching and following up on each of the implanter. Many things could have been done differently; I could have questioned the findings of my GL. We also could have conducted more tests between the two tools to identify the stability at overlapping current range. Also, I could have evaluated my own personal in the situation and the role it played in situation.
Many years ago I spent thirteen months on a training assignment at Intel’s Portland Technology Development (PTD). I decided to focus my ion implant training on Applied Material (AMAT) implanters instead of the Varian implanters. My decision was mainly based on my close working relationship with the Group Leader (GL) and the fact that I was highly impressed with his knowledge on ion implanters. All the full time workers at PTD minimum level of education is a PHD so they were regarded as the best of the best, so-to-speak. My GL was a strong advocate for the AMAT toolset and during my training he would often point out it’s differences over the Varian toolset. AMAT implanters are considered high current and Varian are considered medium current and my GL was instrumental in convincing my factory to purchase a majority of high current implanters because they are the tools of the future.
A year after the completion of my training my factory regretted the decision to purchase those specific high current implanters because they required a significant amount of maintenance when compared to the Varian implanters. Additionally, over the course of time we also discovered that the Varian implanters were more stable in the same overlapping current range. Since then, my GL went to wok for AMAT, and AMAT bought out Varian and our newer factories were stocked with the Varian implanters over the AMAT.
Lessons learned from that outcome is that it was a rush to judgment based on my GL’s biases for the AMAT toolset and we did not do our due diligence researching and following up on each of the implanter. Many things could have been done differently; I could have questioned the findings of my GL. We also could have conducted more tests between the two tools to identify the stability at overlapping current range. Also, I could have evaluated my own personal in the situation and the role it played in situation.