SECS/GEM Implementation in Thailand: Equipment RFP and FAT/SAT

“The equipment spec sheet says ‘SECS/GEM compliant.’ So what do we actually order to connect it to our MES, and what do we check at acceptance? And what about the older machines?” This is a question we hear often from production engineering and IT managers at Japanese semiconductor back-end and electronic component factories in Thailand. Here is the short answer: the success of a SECS/GEM implementation is not decided by whether the equipment is “GEM compliant.” It is decided by 3 things: (1) an inventory of each tool’s GEM Compliance Statement and the actual events, variables, and alarms it exposes; (2) a decision on which tasks the host side will automate; and (3) a clear split of responsibilities between the equipment vendor, the host developer, and the factory. “GEM compliant” is only the starting point. Two tools that are both “GEM compliant” can still expose very different data.

All amounts, hours, counts, and reduction rates in this article are original estimates and assumptions (placeholder values) created for this article, based on the model factory described later. They are neither industry averages nor survey results. Please read them as a “calculation template” and replace them with your own measured figures.

Why SECS/GEM Implementation Is Increasing in Thailand and ASEAN

Since the start of 2026, Thailand has made a series of announcements supporting investment in semiconductors and electronic components.

On September 24, 2026, the Thailand Board of Investment (BOI) announced that the country’s first national semiconductor strategy had been approved. Its strategic targets to 2050 are cumulative investment of about USD 80 billion, annual industry revenue of about USD 150 billion, and more than 230,000 new jobs. The roadmap has 3 phases. Up to 2030, the focus is on strengthening the existing assembly and test base, expanding advanced packaging, and building a foundation for front-end wafer production. The 3 priority technologies are photonics, power semiconductors, and sensors (MEMS). According to the same announcement, investment promotion applications in semiconductors and advanced electronics from 2023 through the first half of 2026 totaled 879 projects worth about USD 27.2 billion.

One week later, on October 1, 2026, the BOI announced that Infineon had opened a power semiconductor site in Samut Prakan province. The investment is USD 1.4 billion. Phase 1, Module A, includes a 30,000 m² cleanroom and a prototyping R&D center, and once all 5 phases are complete the site is expected to become the company’s largest back-end (assembly and test) facility. The BOI announcement describes it as a highly automated factory using robotics, automated material handling, and end-to-end digital production systems.

For the electronics industry as a whole, the BOI reported on August 26, 2026 that investment in the electronics industry since 2023 had exceeded USD 30.5 billion, of which 224 projects worth THB 331 billion were concentrated in PCBs and electronic components. In an announcement on August 27, 2026, the BOI also stated that in the first half of that year it had approved 132 smart and sustainable manufacturing projects (including equipment modernization and integration of advanced automation). None of these programs names SECS/GEM specifically, but they do show that modernizing and automating equipment in existing factories is within the scope of promoted investment.

Neighboring countries are moving too. In Malaysia, a deputy minister of the Ministry of Investment, Trade and Industry stated that approved investment in the semiconductor sector from January 2024 to March 2026 reached about RM 91.9 billion. In Vietnam, in January 2026, Viettel broke ground on the country’s first semiconductor chip fabrication plant at Hoa Lac Hi-Tech Park in Hanoi.

As the number of tools grows, and as more back-end, power module, and PCB factories come online, the practice of “having people record equipment status, recipes, and lot results by hand” becomes harder to defend in customer audits and against traceability requirements. SECS/GEM, which connects equipment and host through standards, is the most common way to address this. For the overall approach to a factory-wide production management system, see “How to Implement MES (for Factories in Thailand).”

What Is SECS/GEM: The Roles of SECS-II, HSMS, SECS-I, and GEM

SECS/GEM is not a single standard but a combination of several SEMI standards with different roles. Because they are easily confused, let us first separate their roles.

Put simply, SECS-II is the “language (grammar and vocabulary),” HSMS and SECS-I are the “phone line,” and GEM is the “conversational etiquette” (what to say in which situation, and how to behave when spoken to). HSMS is standard on today’s new equipment, while SECS-I may still be used on older tools. The general session variant of HSMS (E37.2) was withdrawn in 2009, so in new procurement specifications it is practical to write “HSMS-SS.”

The current version of GEM is E30-0526 from May 2026. Search results sometimes show the previous version as “latest,” so if you specify a compliance version in your RFP, please check the current version in SEMI’s official store. Also, the version that an equipment vendor or commercial software “was implemented against” often does not match the current version, and that in itself is not abnormal. What matters is getting the compliance version in writing for each tool and checking that it does not conflict with the host side.

Inventorying What “GEM Compliant” Really Means: Fundamental Requirements, Additional Capabilities, and the GEM Compliance Statement

GEM has 2 tiers

GEM (E30) defines its requirements in 2 tiers: “Fundamental Requirements” and “Additional Capabilities.” Equipment that implements GEM is expected to meet all of the fundamental requirements, while additional capabilities are optional items implemented only where applicable. Which additional capabilities apply is to be agreed between the equipment maker and the customer (the factory).

The fundamental requirements are 8 items: State Models, Equipment Processing States, Host-Initiated Scenario (for establishing communication), Event Notification, On-Line Identification, Error Messages, Documentation, and Control (Operator Initiated).

The additional capabilities are 15 items: Establish Communications, Dynamic Event Report Configuration, Variable Data Collection, Trace Data Collection, Status Data Collection, Alarm Management, Remote Control, Equipment Constants, Process Recipe Management, Material Movement, Equipment Terminal Services, Clock, Limits Monitoring, Spooling, and Control (Host-Initiated).

The key point here is that most of the tasks a factory wants to automate sit on the “additional capabilities” side. For example, recipe verification requires Process Recipe Management, starting and stopping lots requires Remote Control, alarm collection requires Alarm Management, and preserving data during a communication outage requires Spooling. A “GEM compliant” tool that meets only the fundamental requirements may not be able to do even half of what you want.

What to look for in the GEM Compliance Statement

Equipment that claims GEM compliance must include a GEM Compliance Statement in its documentation. In this table, the equipment maker declares, capability by capability, whether it is “implemented” and whether it is “GEM compliant.” Some vendors explain that equipment may still be regarded as GEM compliant even if the scope of its GEM implementation is limited. In other words, the single phrase “GEM compliant” covers a fairly wide range of implementations.

For the inventory, list the following for each tool.

• Whether a compliance statement exists, and which version of E30 it complies with
• Implementation status of the following additional capabilities: Alarm Management, Process Recipe Management, Remote Control, Spooling, Clock, and Dynamic Event Report Configuration
• Lists of SVIDs (status variables), CEIDs (collection events), and ALIDs (alarms), with descriptions of their meaning
• How recipes (process programs) are named, and whether they can be uploaded to and downloaded from the host
• Connection method (HSMS or SECS-I), and for HSMS, active/passive mode and whether the port number can be changed

Even for the same model from the same maker, CEID and ALID numbers or meanings may change depending on the equipment software version. It is safer to run the inventory not “per model” but “per individual unit and equipment software version.”

What to Automate on the Host Side: Equipment MES Integration and EAP

Even if the equipment can talk SECS/GEM, nothing gets automated until you decide what the host side will do with the data. Host-side software goes by different names depending on the factory, such as EAP (Equipment Automation Program), equipment controller, or cell controller. It sits between the equipment and the MES and handles both communication and business rules.

There are 4 main candidates for automation.

1. Recipe verification: For the product and process step of a lot, the host checks whether the recipe name selected on the equipment (and parameters, if needed) matches the MES master, and blocks the start of processing if it does not. This requires Process Recipe Management and Remote Control.
2. Lot start and stop: The operator scans the lot ID, the host asks the MES whether the lot may be started, and if so, starts the equipment via Remote Control. This physically prevents lots on hold, or materials under quality hold, from being processed.
3. Alarm collection: The host receives alarm set and clear events from the equipment and stores them linked to the time, ALID, and lot. This serves both equipment maintenance and defect analysis.
4. Results and traceability: The host passes lot start and end times, the recipe used, and key variables (temperature, pressure, time, and so on) to the MES as lot results. This shortens the time spent on customer audits and on investigations when complaints arise.

You do not need to do everything at once. As the model estimate below shows, in many factories most of the return comes from item 1, recipe verification. We recommend first getting recipe verification and lot start/stop running reliably, then building alarms and results on top of that.

For taking lot-level results down to the individual unit or board level, see “Managing Unit-Level Traceability.” For the overall design of production management at electronic component factories, see “Production Management Systems for Electronic Component Factories.” For how to design data exchange between the EAP, MES, and ERP, “API Integration Development for Manufacturing” is a useful reference.

Examples of options on the market

There are several options for host-side and equipment-side SECS/GEM software. Examples include Cimetrix, part of PDF Solutions (a family of connectivity products for SECS/GEM, GEM300, and EDA); PEER Group of Canada (equipment connectivity, test applications for SEMI standards compliance, E187 compliance assessment services, and more); Agileo Automation of France (which has reportedly integrated SECS/GEM and GEM300 into its equipment control software development platform and announced plans to extend it to EDA); Mitsubishi Electric’s SECS/GEM communication software for its C Controller (also listed on its Thai subsidiary’s website); and Inductive Automation’s SECS/GEM module for Ignition (host side only, with simulation features for testing). Which one fits depends on the number of tools, your existing MES or SCADA, and your in-house maintenance capabilities. This article does not make recommendations or comparative evaluations. Note also that the version of a standard stated in commercial software documentation is often older than the current version. Please check whether the version gap affects actual operation together with the equipment-side implementation.

Common pitfalls in host-side design

In host-side development, teams tend to stumble more on how business rules are defined than on communication itself. The 3 most typical pitfalls are as follows.

Pitfall 1 is the unit of recipe verification. Whether you verify only the recipe name, or also the recipe contents (key parameters), makes a big difference to the equipment capabilities required and the amount of host development. In factories where recipe naming varies by tool and by operator, you need to establish recipe naming rules and a master before verification can work. If you postpone this, verification may appear to run while the host has no way of judging “which recipe is correct.”

Pitfall 2 is the priority between operator actions and host control. When the host blocks the start of processing, can the operator force a start from the equipment panel? If so, whose approval is required, and where is that recorded? Unless these points are decided, verification becomes a mere formality in day-to-day operation. GEM includes both Control (Operator Initiated) and Control (Host-Initiated), so confirm for each tool which one takes priority.

Pitfall 3 is clock drift. If the equipment clock is out of sync with the host or MES clock, the order of alarms and lot results breaks down, which can lead to wrong conclusions in defect analysis or complaint investigations. Decide early in the design whether to set the time from the host using the Clock capability among GEM’s additional capabilities, or to synchronize time by another method.

How Far to Require GEM300 and EDA

GEM300 is a family of standards for “automated material handling in 300mm front-end fabs”

GEM300 is a family of standards built on top of GEM (E30), adding E39 (Object Services), E40 (Process Jobs), E87 (Carriers and Load Ports), E90 (Substrate and Substrate Location Tracking), E94 (Control Jobs), and others. It assumes automated material handling, carrier management, and job management in 300mm wafer fabs. GEM300-related standards reportedly received meaningful updates to E30, E40, E87, E90, and others in the fall and winter 2025 ballots (votes), and revision work is still continuing.

In back-end, electronic component, and PCB factories, material is often handled in magazines, trays, or reels, without automated wafer carrier transport. In that case, requiring the full GEM300 set on every tool inflates both equipment prices and host development. On the other hand, it is needed for wafer test or tools in processes close to the front end, or where the customer requires connection via GEM300. GEM300 is not something to require across the board “just to be safe”; it is reasonable to decide process by process.

EDA (Interface A) is “an additional option”

EDA (Equipment Data Acquisition, also known as Interface A) is a family of SEMI standards that define communication between the factory’s data collection software and the equipment. It consists of E120, E125, E132, E134, E164, and others, and exchanges data through web services over HTTP/HTTPS. EDA is specialized for data collection and has no functions for controlling or configuring the equipment. It therefore complements SECS/GEM rather than replacing it.

The basic pattern is to handle recipe verification and lot start/stop through SECS/GEM, and to add EDA only for tools that need high-frequency sensor data for quality analysis. Note that EDA has Freeze Version I and II, and compatibility is not achieved unless the client and equipment versions match. There is no need to assume EDA from the start of the implementation. It is enough to decide once SECS/GEM operation is running, based on “which data from which tools is missing.”

Equipment Cybersecurity: E187, E188, E191, and the Division of Responsibility

Implementing SECS/GEM means connecting equipment that used to be isolated to the factory network. At this point, you need to decide who protects what.

• SEMI E187 (E187-0122): Specification for cybersecurity of fab equipment. Aimed at equipment makers and system integrators, it defines baseline requirements in 4 areas: operating system support, network security, endpoint protection, and security monitoring. It covers equipment computers running Windows or Linux; PLCs, SCADA, and similar systems are out of scope.
• SEMI E188 (E188-0222): Specification for malware-free equipment integration. It is a framework for preventing malware from entering the factory during equipment delivery, installation, and maintenance, covering access via networks and removable media, installation, upgrades and maintenance, and recovery when parts are replaced. It covers all computers inside the equipment, but the MES, material handling control, and host systems provided by the factory are explicitly out of scope.
• SEMI E191: A standard that has each equipment computer report 5 items of information: identifier, OS vendor, OS name, OS version, and OS build. It gives the factory material for assessing the risk of connected equipment.

The fact that E188 places “the MES and host out of scope” is important when thinking about the division of responsibility. Equipment-side measures can be requested from equipment vendors using E187 and E188 as reference points, but the EAP, the MES, and the network between them are the responsibility of the factory (and the host developer). In the RFP, you need to spell out who is responsible for what, separately for the equipment side and the host side. For example, if all 3 parties agree on a responsibility matrix like the one below before signing contracts, you can reduce “that’s not in our scope” disputes after go-live.

According to SEMI’s newsletter (August 2026 issue), work is reportedly under way on a major revision of E187 that would introduce 3 tiered security levels. However, as of October 2026, the revised version has not been published. In procurement specifications, it is realistic to use the current E187-0122 as the baseline and to follow the revision as background information.

There are also examples of the semiconductor supply chain becoming a target of cyberattacks. Advantest, a Japanese maker of semiconductor test equipment, announced on February 19 that it had detected unusual activity in its IT environment on February 15, 2026, and that ransomware had been deployed. In March of the same year, files at the Singapore subsidiary of Trio-Tech International, a semiconductor testing company that also has operations in Thailand, were reportedly encrypted, and the incident later expanded to unauthorized disclosure of some data. Neither breach was reported to have come through equipment communication, but when designing for networked equipment, the starting assumptions are to separate the equipment network from the office network and to keep communication paths to the host to the minimum necessary. How to protect the OT boundary is covered in detail in “How to Select an Industrial Data Diode,” and how to prioritize responses to vulnerabilities in equipment OS and software is covered in “OT Vulnerability Management and Patch Triage.”

What to Do with Older Equipment (Without SECS/GEM Support)

Every factory still has older tools that do not support SECS/GEM, or that only have SECS-I (RS-232). There are 3 options.

1. Convert SECS-I and connect: Use a serial-to-TCP/IP converter or host software that supports SECS-I to bring these tools onto the same host as the HSMS-capable equipment. If the equipment has GEM behavior, the host-side business logic can be shared.
2. Connect via a PLC or signals: For tools without communication functions, capture signals such as running, stopped, and alarm with a PLC, and send them up from the PLC to the host. Another approach is to load SECS/GEM communication software onto a PLC or controller so that it appears to the host as a SECS/GEM tool (for example, Mitsubishi Electric offers SECS/GEM communication software for its C Controller that can connect directly to the host without a PC gateway). If you send data up from a PLC, OPC UA is another option. For the approach, see “Migrating to OPC UA 1.05 and Certification.”
3. Keep manual entry: For tools that are few in number, due for replacement soon, or in processes where recipe errors are unlikely, it may be enough not to force a connection and simply switch to lot ID scanning and simple input on handheld terminals.

Older equipment often cannot support recipe verification or remote start/stop, so the benefit centers on “automating records.” It is rational to decide how much to connect by looking at the breakdown of benefits, as in the following estimate.

Cost and ROI: An Estimate for a Model Factory

All figures from here on are placeholder values set independently for this article. They are neither industry averages nor survey results.

Common assumptions (Model Factory Q)

Under these assumptions, current transcription labor costs 1,512,000 THB/year (8,400 hours × 180 THB), losses from recipe errors are 3,200,000 THB/year (8 cases × 400,000 THB), and investigation labor costs 120,000 THB/year (480 hours × 250 THB).

Configuration A: Connect only the 80 SECS/GEM-capable tools

The initial investment is 600,000 THB for requirements definition and equipment GEM inventory, 2,400,000 THB for host/EAP development, 1,200,000 THB for enabling and configuring GEM on the equipment side (80 tools × 15,000 THB), 800,000 THB for MES integration, and 500,000 THB for FAT/SAT, for a total of 5,500,000 THB. Annual operating costs are assumed to be 900,000 THB for maintenance and 200,000 THB for license maintenance, or 1,100,000 THB/year.

The benefits (assumed values) are as follows.

• Transcription reduction: 80% of the 5,600 hours for supported tools = 4,480 hours × 180 THB = 806,400 THB
• Recipe error prevention: 5 of 8 cases prevented × 400,000 THB = 2,000,000 THB
• Shorter investigations: 50% of 480 hours = 240 hours × 250 THB = 60,000 THB

Total benefits are 2,866,400 THB/year, net annual benefit after operating costs is 1,766,400 THB/year, and the simple payback period is 5,500,000 ÷ 1,766,400 = about 3.1 years.

Configuration B: Configuration A + retrofit connection of the 40 older tools via converters and PLCs

The initial investment is the 5,500,000 THB of Configuration A, plus 2,400,000 THB for individual surveys of the older tools and converter/PLC modifications (40 tools × 60,000 THB), plus 300,000 THB for additional FAT/SAT, for a total of 8,200,000 THB. Annual operating costs are Configuration A’s 1,100,000 THB plus 400,000 THB of additional maintenance, or 1,500,000 THB/year.

The benefits (assumed values) are calculated as replacing those of Configuration A (they are not added on top of Configuration A’s benefits).

• Transcription reduction: 80% of all 8,400 hours = 6,720 hours × 180 THB = 1,209,600 THB
• Recipe error prevention: 7 of 8 cases prevented × 400,000 THB = 2,800,000 THB
• Shorter investigations: 75% of 480 hours = 360 hours × 250 THB = 90,000 THB

Total benefits are 4,099,600 THB/year, net annual benefit is 2,599,600 THB/year, and the simple payback period is 8,200,000 ÷ 2,599,600 = about 3.2 years.

Takeaway 1: Payback is about the same, but B delivers more over 5 years

Over 5 years, Configuration A yields 1,766,400 × 5 − 5,500,000 = 3,332,000 THB, and Configuration B yields 2,599,600 × 5 − 8,200,000 = 4,798,000 THB, so Configuration B delivers 1,466,000 THB more. Looking only at the increment for the older tools, the additional initial investment of 2,700,000 THB brings an additional net benefit of 2,599,600 − 1,766,400 = 833,200 THB/year, and the payback on the increment is about 3.2 years.

In other words, under these assumptions, connecting the older tools is not a “poor investment.” The reason we still recommend postponing the older tools is not that they do not pay off, but that expanding only after confirming that recipe verification, alarms, and lot operations are running on the supported tools keeps the scope of any failure smaller. Once the host business logic, the hand-off to the MES, and the shop-floor operating rules are settled, adding the older tools via converters or PLCs is just a matter of fitting them into the same template. This is the rationale for a phased rollout.

Takeaway 2: About 70% of the benefit comes from preventing recipe errors

Of Configuration A’s 2,866,400 THB in benefits, recipe error prevention accounts for 2,000,000 THB, or about 70%. If we set the loss from recipe errors to zero as a test, benefits fall to 866,400 THB, and after subtracting operating costs of 1,100,000 THB, the result is −233,600 THB per year, so the investment cannot be recovered. In Configuration B as well, recipe error prevention accounts for 2,800,000 THB of the 4,099,600 THB in benefits, or about 68%.

What this tells us is that “less transcription” alone rarely justifies a SECS/GEM investment. What decides it is your own track record: how many defective lots recipe and parameter errors are causing, and how much those losses cost. Before placing an order, the first task is to tally the number of defective lots and the loss amounts caused by recipes and parameters over the past 1 year. In the 90-day plan below, this is placed in the first 30 days.

12 Items to Include in the RFP

These are the minimum items to include in the RFP (request for proposal) when asking both equipment vendors and host developers for quotes.

The item most often overlooked is No. 10, change management. If the equipment software is updated and CEIDs or ALIDs change, the host side may no longer receive them correctly. Include in the initial contract an agreement that the vendor will provide a list of changes with every update and that the host side will run regression tests.

What to Check in FAT/SAT

In FAT (factory acceptance test) and SAT (site acceptance test after installation), you are confirming not that “it connects” but that “it works correctly for the business.”

“Rejection of wrong recipes” in particular is the function responsible for about 70% of the benefit in the model estimate. We recommend including not only normal cases but also the mistakes operators tend to make (recipes with similar names, outdated recipe versions, recipes for a different product) as test cases.

Issues Specific to Thailand and ASEAN

Procurement and equipment changes in BOI-promoted projects

Projects that receive BOI investment promotion may have conditions attached regarding the procurement of equipment and software and the handling of equipment changes. How adding or modifying equipment for a SECS/GEM implementation relates to the conditions of your incentives differs from project to project. This article cannot make that judgment, so please confirm individually with the relevant BOI office or with specialists.

Local support from equipment vendors

Back-end and electronic component equipment is often made by Japanese, Taiwanese, or European manufacturers, and local support in Thailand can be thin. It is important to specify concretely in the RFP the submission of the GEM Compliance Statement and the SVID, CEID, and ALID lists, on-site attendance at FAT/SAT, and the remote maintenance path. The remote maintenance path in particular is also an OT security issue. Using the principles of E188 as a guide, set it up so that you can record who connected to which tool, when, and through which path.

Multilingual alarm text

Alarm text reaches the host in the equipment’s language (Japanese, English, Chinese, and so on). So that Thai operators and maintenance staff can understand it immediately, it is practical to build an alarm dictionary on the host side (Thai and English display text and response procedures for each ALID). Building the dictionary requires the equipment vendor’s cooperation, so request it at the RFP stage.

Standardization across multiple sites

If you use the same equipment models in Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam, standardizing the host-side equipment model definitions (variable, event, and alarm mapping tables and business logic) makes it easier to keep implementation costs down from the 2nd site onward. However, as noted above, numbers may change with the equipment software version, so managing differences site by site is essential.

90-Day Plan

Days 0-30: Measure recipe-related defects and inventory equipment GEM capabilities

Tally the number of defective lots and loss amounts caused by recipes and parameters over the past 1 year. In parallel, inventory the GEM Compliance Statement, SVID, CEID, and ALID lists, connection method, and equipment software version for every tool, unit by unit. At this stage, replace the model estimate’s assumptions with your own figures and form an outlook for the investment decision.

Days 31-60: Pilot host connection and recipe verification on 3-5 representative tools

Select 3-5 representative tools from the processes with the largest expected benefit, connect them to the host via HSMS, and pilot recipe verification and lot start/stop. Confirm that wrong recipes can be rejected and that the operator workflow is workable, and draft the business rules and alarm dictionary.

Days 61-90: Finalize FAT/SAT criteria and decide how to handle older tools

Based on the pilot results, finalize the FAT/SAT test items and pass criteria and complete the RFP. For each older tool, decide which of the 3 options to take: convert and connect, connect via a PLC, or keep manual entry.

By the end of the 90 days, the deliverables you want in hand are these 7: (1) a tally of recipe-related defects and your own version of the investment estimate reflecting it; (2) a unit-level GEM inventory (compliance statements, variable, event, and alarm lists, equipment software versions); (3) pilot results on representative tools and draft business rules; (4) a draft alarm dictionary; (5) a responsibility matrix covering equipment, host, and factory; (6) the RFP and FAT/SAT criteria; and (7) a decision table on how to handle each older tool. With these in place, you will be able to obtain quotes for the full implementation from multiple companies under the same conditions and compare them. Conversely, if the tally in (1) shows that recipe-related defects are rare, it is also a rational decision to narrow automation to alarm collection and results automation, or to reconsider the timing of the implementation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is SECS/GEM? How does it differ from HSMS and SECS-II?

SECS/GEM is a combination of SEMI standards for connecting semiconductor and electronic component manufacturing equipment to a host (the factory’s system). SECS-II (E5) defines the format and meaning of messages, HSMS (E37) defines communication over TCP/IP, SECS-I (E4) defines legacy communication over RS-232, and GEM (E30) defines a common model of equipment behavior. The current version of GEM is E30-0526 (May 2026).

Is GEM300 also necessary for back-end and electronic component factories?

Not across the board. GEM300 is a family of standards that assumes automated material handling and carrier and job management in 300mm wafer fabs. In back-end and electronic component processes that do not use automated wafer carrier transport, judge the need process by process. It should be considered where the customer requires connection via GEM300 or in processes that handle wafers.

What does a SECS/GEM implementation cost, and how long does it take?

It varies widely depending on the number of tools, the connection method, and the scope of tasks to be automated. For this article’s model factory (120 tools), we estimated an initial investment of 5,500,000 THB when connecting only the 80 supported tools, and 8,200,000 THB when including the 40 older tools, but these are all placeholder values. As for timing, we recommend a phased approach: first spend 90 days on inventory, piloting, and finalizing the RFP, then proceed with the full implementation.

How do you connect older tools that do not support SECS/GEM?

Tools that only have SECS-I can be connected using converters or host software that supports SECS-I. For tools without communication functions, one approach is to capture signals such as running status and alarms with a PLC and send them up to the host. For tools that are few in number and offer little benefit, keeping input on handheld terminals is also a realistic choice.

Should we choose EDA (Interface A) or SECS/GEM?

They are not alternatives to choose between but tools to combine. EDA is dedicated to data collection and has no functions for controlling or configuring equipment, so recipe verification and lot start/stop are done with SECS/GEM. The basic approach is to consider adding EDA only for tools that need high-frequency data for quality analysis.

Should SEMI E187 and E188 be included in equipment procurement specifications?

As long as equipment is connected to the network, we recommend including them as items for checking the compliance status of each equipment computer. However, E188 places the MES and host systems out of scope, so measures for the host side and the network need to be decided separately by the factory. Work on revising E187 is reportedly under way, but the current version as of October 2026 is E187-0122. For BOI-promoted projects, please also confirm the handling of procurement and equipment changes individually with the relevant authority or specialists.

Summary

• The success of a SECS/GEM implementation is not decided by whether equipment is “GEM compliant.” It is decided by 3 things: an inventory of each tool’s GEM Compliance Statement and its variables, events, and alarms; the choice of tasks to automate on the host side; and the division of responsibility.
• Many of the tasks factories want to automate (recipe verification, lot start/stop, alarm collection, data preservation during communication outages) sit on the “additional capabilities” side of GEM.
• Do not require GEM300 and EDA across the board; decide by process and purpose.
• E188 places the MES and host out of scope, so design the protection of the host side and the network as the factory’s responsibility.
• In the model estimate (placeholder values), about 70% of the benefit came from preventing recipe errors. The first task before ordering is to measure the number of defective lots and the loss amounts caused by recipes.
• Connecting older equipment is not necessarily a poor investment, but a phased rollout that first stabilizes operations on supported tools and then expands keeps the scope of any failure smaller.

At TOMAS TECH, we support Japanese factories in Thailand from the preparation stage, such as GEM inventories for each tool and tallying recipe-related defects, through to designing host and MES integration and attending FAT/SAT. Even if you are at the stage of “first wanting to know what is possible with the equipment we already have,” please feel free to contact us through our contact form.

References

• SEMI E30 (GEM) official store page: https://store-us.semi.org/products/e03000-semi-e30-specification-for-the-generic-model-for-communications-and-control-of-manufacturing-equipment-gem
• SEMI E5 (SECS-II) official store page: https://store-us.semi.org/products/e00500-semi-e5-specification-for-semi-equipment-communications-standard-2-message-content-secs-ii
• SEMI E37 (HSMS) official store page: https://store-us.semi.org/products/e03700-semi-e37-high-speed-secs-message-services-hsms-generic-services
• SEMI E187 official store page: https://store-us.semi.org/products/e18700-semi-e187-specification-for-cybersecurity-of-fab-equipment
• SEMI E188 official store page: https://store-us.semi.org/products/e18800-semi-e188-specification-for-malware-free-equipment-integration
• Cimetrix “GEM Compliance”: https://cimetrix.com/gemcompliance?hsLang=en
• secsgem documentation “GEM compliance”: https://secsgem.readthedocs.io/en/latest/gem/compliance.html
• PDF Solutions “SEMI E30”: https://www.pdf.com/standards/semi-e30/
• PDF Solutions “SEMI GEM 300 Standards”: https://www.pdf.com/standards/semi-gem-300-standards/
• PDF Solutions “SEMI Standards Changes” (2026 Europe Users Group Meeting): https://www.pdf.com/users-conference/2026-europe-users-group-meeting/semi-standards-changes/
• PDF Solutions “Cimetrix Product Overview 2026”: https://www.pdf.com/users-conference/2026-europe-users-group-meeting/cimetrix-product-overview-2026/
• Cimetrix “Interface A (EDA)”: https://www.cimetrix.com/InterfaceA
• PEER Group “Cybersecurity (SEMI Standards)”: https://www.peergroup.com/resources/semi-standards/cybersecurity/
• SEMI Standards Watch (August 2026) “E187 major revision: tiered security levels”: https://www.semi.org/en/standards-watch-2026-aug/e187-major-revision-tiered-security-levels
• Business Wire (Agileo Automation, June 16, 2025): https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250616564660/en
• Mitsubishi Electric Factory Automation (Thailand) “Pre-installed SECS”: https://www.mitsubishifa.co.th/en/SolutionsProduct-Instrumentation-Embedded-Pre-installed-SECS.php
• Inductive Automation “SECS/GEM” (Ignition 8.1): https://docs.inductiveautomation.com/docs/8.1/ignition-modules/secs-gem.md
• Wikipedia “SECS/GEM”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SECS/GEM
• Advantest announcement (February 19, 2026): https://www.advantest.com/cn/news/2026/20260219.html
• The Record (March 23, 2026): https://therecord.media/ransomware-trio-tech-semiconductor-sec
• BOI Press Release No.166/2569 (September 24, 2026): https://www.boi.go.th/upload/content/PR166_2569EN.pdf
• BOI Press Release No.171/2569 (October 1, 2026): https://www.boi.go.th/upload/content/PR171_2569EN.pdf
• BOI Press Release No.141/2569 (August 26, 2026): https://www.boi.go.th/upload/content/PR141_2569EN.pdf
• BOI Press Release No.144/2569 (August 27, 2026): https://www.boi.go.th/upload/content/PR144_2569EN.pdf
• The Edge Malaysia (July 16, 2026): https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/810926
• VnEconomy (January 16, 2026): https://en.vneconomy.vn/construction-of-first-domestic-chip-plant-starts.htm