Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/1428512
NOVEMBER 2021 I PCB007 MAGAZINE 13 because otherwise you're going to have prob- lems competing later. Shaughnessy: Do you typically start off work- ing with the OEM or an EMS provider? Kolmodin: Usually the OEMs are going to con- tract to the manufacturers. I'm not saying that we don't interface with the OEMs but a lot of times we're the third one down the line. ere's always a strong communication line between us and the manufacturer. Shaughnessy: Interesting. Some companies just don't really have a test strategy. ey think it's expensive but the potential is there to save you from blowing a lot of money downstream. How do you convince someone of its value? Kolmodin: e question is: Are you adding value to the board? We're not necessarily a value add but an insurance policy. Nowadays nobody wants to skip tests because there's too much involved in the manufacture. We're not talking double-sided or four layers anymore so it's really not cost effective to skip test because rolling the dice can be extremely painful. When we talk to a customer, we ask them about their cost of test, and it's remarkable to discover that some have no idea. ey have a test department, but they have no idea what it costs, or they have a very incorrect idea of what they're doing. at is a challenge for us to make our case for value add or ROI. It's important for manufacturing products such as plating lines, presses, and drills to stay current with the technology. I'll see some- one force a board into an antiquated or semi- obsolete test department and wonder why it stays there for three days because they can't get it tested. It's a good argument for paying someone to take that headache away, some- one who already understands it. It's about outsourcing vs. not outsourcing. Some man- ufacturers love the idea because it takes all that capital and headache away. Others feel they can do it better internally, so that's just the way it works. Shaughnessy: We hear in our surveys and inter- views that, especially the designers, are being told you should own the design. Others say, "Well, not really; it's not my problem neces- sarily." Kolmodin: at's the challenge electrical test has had for years because what happens is the designers prepare to design a board, they have a system and components, and they lay it out. But they don't have a sense for what will happen, what pain points the manufacturer will have, or what costs will be associated with their requirements. And then there's test as well. My argument is this: "e technology is available to improve your design. It may have some finite restrictions on it and may impact the cost of your final board or the ability to per- form all the requirements that you have." e disconnect has been between designing at the OEM side and manufacturing and test. I think a test strategy needs to have multiple groups involved. Obviously, the ultimate solution is to have the test guys and OEMs in the same group so there's that understanding of manufactur- ing and test and measurement; otherwise, you have those disconnects as you go forward. Shaughnessy: What advice would you give designers regarding tests? What are some of the common problems, and what should they do or not do regarding DFT? Kolmodin: If they have a manufacturer, they definitely should get feedback on capability. From the manufacturing side, they need to have information from their test and measure- ment group on how to feed that back to the OEM so the OEM knows, "We can't put 10.5 micro packs in this area back-to-back because there's no way in hell we're going to be able to test it." at type of feedback is the most difficult.