The economics of system-level testing

Farren, D.; Ambler, T.

doi:10.1109/54.605996

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[8] gives a framework for analyzing the impact of BIST and boundary scan at the board and field levels. [11] describes a model for an assembly factory, and [5] discusses system test costs, but without considering the impact of DFT.…”

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justifying DFT with a Hierarchical Top-Down Cost-Benefit Model

Davidson

2008

2008 IEEE International Test Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How can we justify system level DFT? We must show that it has a positive return on investment (ROI). Existing test ROI models are manufacturing centric, do not account for the disaggregation of the product realization process, and are often focused on a specific DFT method. We propose a new, top-down, hierarchical ROI model, which starts with potential benefits and can handle entire systems more effectively than current models. IntroductionIt is well known that Design for Testability (DFT) improves quality and saves money. While DFT methods are now standard for most ICs, DFT at the system level is more problematic. One of the reasons for this is the lack of a full stream cost and benefit model, stretching from fab to field, that can help DFT proponents justify the addition of testability. There have been numerous models proposed at the IC level ( Wei [10], for instance) and models proposed at the system level, [11] but none with details on the costs and benefits at each stage of system design and integration, and none focused on the justification of DFT.The purpose of this paper is to provide such a model, but we will go about this in a slightly different way from previous efforts. These have labored to be precise and accurate. To do this, previous models are overly complex, and depend on parameters not known yet or difficult to obtain. Our model, on the other hand, has two goals:• Be detailed enough to give the DFT engineer advice on the important factors to be decided when making the decision to request DFT, and how much to propose. • Provide a convincing financial argument for the benefits of DFT. We don't believe that a manager deadset against DFT will be convinced by any model, but one in favor of it or leaning towards it will value a model to help convince upper management of the value of this effort. This means that the model must be kept simple and parameters which don't significantly affect the use/no-use decision should be dropped. There are some things considered in our model which we think have not been handled well in previous work:• Uncertainty. While Wei's model considers the uncertainty of both costs and benefits, this must be a fundamental part of any model. Understanding the benefits of DFT for an existing product and manufacturing process introduces far less uncertainty than trying to do so for a product yet to be built or designed.• The impact of disaggregation. DFT was first used by vertically integrated companies, where some additional expense at the IC level could benefit the companies bottom line at the system level. Today more systems are built from standard parts, and manufacturing has been outsourced. This limits the freedom of the DFT proponent to add DFT. • The impact of the distribution of actual field failures on the benefit analysis. While it is tough to make predictions, especially about the future, as Yogi Berra said, we want DFT to address the failures most likely to happen. Our model must take all of these factors into account. More importantly, the DFT advocate must take these...

show abstract

Section: Previous Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justifying DFT with a Hierarchical Top-Down Cost-Benefit Model

Davidson

2008

2008 IEEE International Test Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Farren and Ambler described the case where identical products manufactured and tested in different locations can have markedly different test results. 2 Although this case can arise from different handling procedures or other causes, the lack of detailed accuracy in the test can also cause the inconsistency. Applying BIST can greatly reduce this variation.…”

Section: Effect Of Lower Development Costs For Test Program Setsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…various approaches available, 2 and should also consider the economics of BIST in field support. In this article, we view the economics of BIST from the product users' perspective.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Economics of built-in self-test

Ungar

Ambler

2001

IEEE Des. Test. Comput.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

costs and few benefits. The truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes. The ideal solution is a sound economic model that lets designers-who have products with various production volumes, design complexities, specifications, support requirements, and customer stress levels-better determine what type of BIST, if any, is best for their applications.IC manufacturers evaluate the benefits and costs of wafer-, intellectual-property-, system-ona-chip-, and IC-level BISTs based on profit margin impact. Board manufacturers typically focus on the economics of boundary scan and boardlevel BIST implementations, although they should also consider the benefits derived from IC-level BIST. Board-level BIST, a relatively new phenomenon, 1 integrates IC-level, boundary scan, and board-level logic BIST for both circuit card vendors and system integrators. System manufacturers consider system-, board-, and IClevel BIST in determining the economics of the Economics of Built-in Self-Test International Test Conference 70 Using built-in self-test at the right level offers users significant cost savings, but determining which level, if any, is best for BIST can be complex. A detailed economic analysis can unravel heterogeneous costs and benefits so that designers and managers can make the right decision. Design and test Design, design for testability (DFT) and test time, budgeting considerations, marketing, quality and reliability, target throughput, training, packaging technology, circuit layout, silicon, pin out, CAD tools, designers' skills, performance degradation, computing equipment, and capital investment DFT and ATE Purchasing, depreciation and maintenance, operator and programming salaries, other labor rates, setup time, test program length, pin memory, program fault coverage, program preparation time, test and diagnosis time, test fixtures, manufacturing yield, production volume, and number of board types Field service Repair depot, logistics support, field repair, downtime, repeat visits, and design for maintainability

show abstract

“…C ost : the overall system-level test cost t 1 : the test time in manufacturing system t 2 : the customer run time t 3 : the repair and test time C omt :the cost of the manufacturing system test (t 1 +t 2 ): the failure occurrence rate C fs : the overall cost of field service A lot of effort has been made to reduce the cost of the overall manufacturing system test, C omt . Farren and Ambler [6] showed that this cost can be reduced by optimizing the test time, t 1 , in the manufacturing system.…”

Section: Overall System-level Test Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economics of field service for electronic systems

Lin

Lee

Ambler

IEEE Autotestcon, 2005.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field service is a complex process that involves in sending technicians to perform repair tasks on consumer products. It is responsible for having failure products fixed and keeping a low service cost. The cost of field service is an important corporate activity but it is often not well understood. Minimal cost of field service is particularly critical to global competitiveness for an electronic company. The economic analysis of field service is a useful analytical tool to yield a low field service cost and achieve high customer satisfactory. This paper presents a field service cost model and explores all aspects of overall system-level test for electronic systems.

show abstract

The economics of system-level testing

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

Justifying DFT with a Hierarchical Top-Down Cost-Benefit Model

Justifying DFT with a Hierarchical Top-Down Cost-Benefit Model

Economics of built-in self-test

The economics of field service for electronic systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About