Open and proprietary is the necessary path for ATE - Opinion - Teradyne Inc's Open Architecture Initiative - Company Business and Marketing

Electronic News, Nov 4, 2002 by Mark Kohalmy

THERE IS AN ACTIVE DIScussion underway to define an open architecture for automated test equipment (ATE), and in its simplest form a successful open architecture must provide two things. First, it must enable third-party suppliers to develop instruments that can be easily integrated into the test system. And second, any open architecture approach needs to deliver an adequate return on investment for all participants. But any open architecture must be created in a way that ensures competitive test performance and economics for the customer.

While the open architecture debate has focused on the merits of open vs. closed, the more important discussion is how open it should be. Should the open architecture be proprietary or non-proprietary? The apparent benefits of a non-proprietary approach include the fact that there are no barriers to entry -- any provider can choose to deliver any component of the overall solution: base system, instruments, or software.

But in a non-proprietary environment, there is no protection for the IP invested in hardware or software, and without IP protection there is no incentive for suppliers to participate. In a proprietary environment, IP protection creates the potential for financial return, making it more likely to attract the suppliers and investment necessary to make an architecture successful.

The PC offers an interesting example of how a proprietary, open architecture can work. The primary beneficiaries of the PC were Intel and Microsoft. Although IBM established the platform, Intel and Microsoft owned the IP that was essential to the architecture, and this gave them the incentive to invest in and develop the platform into the success it is today. It is interesting to note that an open architecture can have both proprietary and non-proprietary aspects. However, from the supplier side, the beneficiaries of the open platform are those who own the IP. From the user side, the beneficiaries are the customers who are able to choose from a broad selection of quality products.

When we apply these lessons to ATE, we can begin by considering the system in three parts: the base system, the software and the instruments. The instruments are inherently proprietary. Every supplier will differentiate its product through a proprietary design. For example, in the open VXI environment, suppliers compete on the basis of their proprietary products. One can expect that the model for open ATE would be no different.

Software presents a unique challenge, though. The only value software creates is associated with IP, requiring a proprietary approach. However, the integration of instruments in an overall software system is critical to the success of an open architecture, so it is necessary that the software system itself be open. Such a software system would be layered to support access at any level from a graphical user interface to the run-time code. It would use industry standard tools and languages such as C++ and Visual Basic. And it would run in a standard computing environment, such as an x86 architecture PC running the Windows operating system, to ensure that instruments can be successfully integrated.

For the base ATE system, a non-proprietary architecture such as VXI could be implemented, making it very easy to integrate third-party instruments. But such a general, nonproprietary approach would result in a suboptimized test system, as the individual instruments would operate in a stand-alone way.

To maximize functional and economic performance, an open test architecture that optimizes performance for high-volume manufacturing is superior. Such an architecture would provide data busses for transparent capture of test data, instrument signaling for synchronization, and a configurable data bus to enable efficient parallel test. Although proprietary, such an ATE architecture can still be open, just as the PC is today.

Thus there is no contradiction in an open and a proprietary ATE platform. In fact, the proprietary nature of the platform provides the IP protection needed to ensure that it can be successfully established in the marketplace with solutions optimized for high-volume manufacturing. In the end, an open ATE architecture that facilitates integration of all individual instruments with fidelity and flexibility can be successful.

Mark Kohalmy is business development manager for Teradyne Inc.'s Open Architecture Initiative.