Article View: comp.lsi.testing
Article #45Re: To Test or Not to Test?
From: Praveen Vishakantaiah
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:34
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:34
79 lines
4684 bytes
4684 bytes
I think Janak Patel has pointed out an important question which may have to be answered before talking about testing issues. Also, do test engineers really hype the need for test? > Janak> In this sense, testing is like buying an insurance. I compare test to an "extended warranty" rather than "insurance". An insurance policy is bought to protect oneself from the external environment whereas an extended warranty or even a "guarantee" is a protection against defective products. > Janak> Designers don't see any concrete gain by adding in > Janak> testability - it just comes in their way! This reminds me of a talk given by Dr. Szygenda at the "First International Workshop on the Economics of Design, Test and Manufacturing". He focussed on the legal aspects of not testing designs. I remember him saying that, legally a design engineer can be held responsible for a defective design (we all know that defective manufacturing can result in problems -- automobile recalls, defective medicines etc.) and can be potentially sued by a customer!! If in the future, in fact customers start suing system developers and system developers in turn sue the chip makers [I am sure the lawyers will try to find a way out of it;-)], testing can easily become a tangible thing. Do you think if a design engineer is told that he can be the target of a law suit if he did not consider testing :-), he will still say, "I am not interested in testing the design"? Just look at the US doctors and you will know the answer. > Janak> If you can't think of such a chip, look up a $1 LCD watch. The less expensive an item is, the lower are the chances that a customer is upset with the product [my experience, of course:-)]. That is why such products allow you take risks. But, just think of buying a $15,000 car and finding out that it has a defective chip which proves to be fatal within one month of purchase. The customer will sue the auto maker who in turn will definitely pass that on to the chip maker and so on. > Janak> It is very hard to sell testability or high coverage to this group. > Janak> (a) you don't ship very many defective chips. (just lucky!) or It is tough to argue with luck. I will run through a red light today and TEST my luck. See, you even have to TEST your luck;-) > Janak> (b) the customers are not very mad at receiving bad chips, or This might depend upon how frequently they receive the bad chips. If it is too often, it is hard to believe that the companies can still maintain their supremacy in a competitive market. > Janak> (c) the customers don't know that it is your chip that is bad in > Janak> the board. This is dangerous territory. Either they will have to improve the board tests or just hope that they are lucky that their customers buy their board and never use it:-) So, it looks like the best case just works on luck (I too have heard this reason very often, although in secret) and if this is the case, I am surprised why companies are starting to panic to find better testing strategies [if not, wake me up:-)]. It is understandable if companies do not want to spend money on extensive testing, but there needs to be at least some amount of testing (how much is the question) to ensure quality. If the customer answers the question, "To sue or not to sue", then I will answer the question, "To test or not to test":-) Praveen Vishakantaiah. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, | Ph : (512)338-3736| -- 3500 W. Balcones Center Drive | e-mail : | -- Austin, TX 78759. | praveen@mcc.com | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- ALSO A HARD WORKING MEMBER OF :-) | -- Computer Engineering Research Center, | Ph : (512)471-8013| -- University of Texas, Austin. e-mail : praveen@cerc.utexas.edu | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Aug31.223410.29152@mcc.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!milano!sirius.mcc.com!praveenReferences:
<17lsueINN1js@bashful.crhc.uiuc.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.lsi.testing Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!cs.utexas.edu!milano!sirius.mcc.com!praveen From: praveen@sirius.mcc.com (Praveen Vishakantaiah) Subject: Re: To Test or Not to Test? Message-ID: <1992Aug31.223410.29152@mcc.com> Keywords: yield test cost Sender: news@mcc.com Nntp-Posting-Host: sirius.mcc.com Organization: Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corp. References: <17lsueINN1js@bashful.crhc.uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:34:10 GMT Lines: 80