An Interview with
Toni Bernard
atg Test Systems

by: The Board Authority
March 1999

The general sales manager of atg Test Systems offers his company's perspective of the test equipment market.

The Board Authority: At the end of 1998, Everett Charles acquired atg Test Systems. What are your comments on this event?

TB: atg Test Systems GmbH and ECT obviously see this as a positive move with multiple benefits. The atg management and technical leadership in Germany remain in place, and [they] are very enthusiastic. As you know, atg continues to operate independently, but all parties have better access to capital and technologies required to address future challenges in test. ECT and atg Test Systems bring complementary products and capabilities to the market. We sought this relationship, and we are delighted that it is in place.

The Board Authority: What is your perception of the increasing demand and pressure on the electrical test side? How do you see this industry evolving in the near future?

TB: Evolving is a good word. While the challenges of finer pitch continue, there are many other issues and opportunities for improvement in test. Test engineers who reflect on the frequency of late night and weekend problems would probably agree. We also see new ways for final test to add value, beyond simply sorting good and bad boards. We see immediate opportunities coming from smooth integration of existing technologies, and then adding new techniques as they are established and validated. This approach does not require massive capital reinvestment by our customers. Our participation with the ECT group is very consistent with our vision and goals in this regard.

The Board Authority: "New test technology" is becoming a common phrase in the mouths of people involved with electrical test issues. Can you shore your vision on this topic?

TB: Many of your questions suggest the rapid emergence or dominance of radically new technologies. A variety of advanced technologies are popularly discussed, but many of these appear to include significant limitations. Many fine people have been experimenting for years with various techniques in Germany, Japan, the United States, and elsewhere. Many of [them] seek continued funding of efforts to develop experimental systems. The claims have generated considerable discussion. Our opinion is that some have fewer limits than others. But as noted above, technologies [that] radically reduce throughput or seriously compromise the quality of test don't seem to offer promise as general solutions in a world full of increasing demand for-and dependence upon-quality interconnections. However, as has happened in the semiconductor test arena, some techniques may fill gaps in the coverage of fullcontact technologies.

The Board Authority: Do you think that standard test solutions will be able to address most of the requirements of the industry in the near future? What about microvia boards, and boards featuring CSP or flip-chip applications? Do you believe off-contact test technologies will really become on alternative to standard test solutions for these applications in the coming months?

TB: If by "standard test solutions" you mean "zero change," then no. But we already do things with contact test [that] major competitors described as impossible one or two years ago. For years, the maximum allowed tilt of a pin was completely accepted as ten percent of its length. Today, the fixturing area is vastly improved. The point is that while we experiment with new technologies, we also continue to advance full-contact techniques. We are not finished with contact test. We think you will see some new full-contact technologies shortly, which do not compromise test coverage.

The Board Authority: What are the new kinds of requirements you get from your customers?

TB: There is increased demand for low-resistance test, finer Pitch test, reduced cost of test, increased emphasis on RF performance, and streamlining of data and fixture preparation software processes. Test is trying to move out of the mindset of only testing the boards. There is an opportunity to elevate the value of final test within the factory by generating vastly improved process-control feedback. Test can do more to reduce the creation of defects. So we do not see "fine pitch" as the only major issue in test.

The Board Authority: Do you have special discussions with customers on test issues?

TB: We must innovate constantly to serve our customers, and we do this best when customers cooperate. It is important to listen to both technical and business concerns of customers. Public forums are also an important avenue in sharing information. We have always done this as a normal part of business. Many of the unique features of our multiheaded probing systems are the result of such discussions with customers worldwide. ECT has also made substantial contributions to well-targeted working groups, such as the IPC 356A update team.

The Board Authority: Can you briefly explain your roadmap in terms of fine peripheral pitch and density, and other important parameters, such as controlled importance and crosstalk? What range of solutions will you address in the coming months and years? Will the corresponding test technologies be close to conventional ones?

TB: We have always felt that we were unconventional and innovative, but at the same time quite realistic. Our A2 and A3 flying-probe systems were considered unusual and unlikely (to be successful] by many experts. These are now extraordinarily successful products. But we must avoid distracting our customers, and ourselves, by announcing products until they are available for serious demonstration. Perhaps it is not well understood [that] successful equipment companies often achieve major strides without requiring complete replacement of a machine. Put another way, it is easy to find examples of huge improvements that come from incremental updates to equipment and software. You will see such improvements from atg and ECT this year....

The Board Authority: What about software development?

TB: Our approach is not different for software. We do not conceptualize "hardware" and "software" as separate experiences for our customers. For many years, in good times and difficult times, we have provided integrated solutions. Our customers purchase solutions, not hardware and software.

The Board Authority: If you had to offer suggestions to test equipment users, what would you say?

TB: Consider not only the price of test equipment, but the total cost of test including total throughput, test coverage, labor costs, test-escape risks (or rangeof-fault coverage), and realistic overhead. Consider the ability to handle the workload, meet new customer test criteria, and supply improved feedback to your factory-improving quality.

The Board Authority: If you had to define the ideal tester, from the user's perspective, what would it be? How about from the test vendor's perspective?

TB: Beyond the comments already made, as a vendor, we must answer this question with our product offerings. Perhaps this is the most honest and realistic response answer possible. If one must find a theoretical ideal, one might argue that the ideal tester would provide so much useful information to the factory that defects are eliminated, and final electrical test becomes [unnecessary]. But right now, the largest body of data offered by most systems is simply yield information. We have some products directed at the challenge of process improvement.

The Board Authority: Do you believe that the end of full-contact test is imminent?

TB: Not at all. It offers too many advantages in terms of parallel throughput, low-resistance accuracy, RF test, and direct measurement of product performance. Techniques will be enhanced. New techniques will be added. Near-term new technologies may complement contact test in certain situations but not eliminate it.