Inhibiting factors in design for testability higher education

Many engineering students are not graduating with the necessary knowledge or experience in design for testability (DFT), automatic test equipment (ATE), or diagnostics in order to work in these fields. They typically do not demonstrate a consistent understanding of integrated diagnostics, or have an appreciation of the need. These same “fresh out” engineers will ultimately derive the low-level requirements for developing diagnostic systems, and this lack of knowledge of testing environments will have a significant impact. Failure to adequately address the integrated diagnostics and testing needs of a system greatly impacts its supportability and, consequently, the cost of that system throughout its life cycle. Integrated diagnostics is a career field for which there currently exists no standard set of basic qualifications, few educational opportunities to study at the university level, no clear processes within most organizations for practicing integrated diagnostics as a systems engineering activity, and no uniform method of sharing techniques and lessons learned with new employees. Studies have found that the majority of test engineer training is on-the-job, rather than knowledge acquired as part of a higher education degree program, or a formal training process [1]-[7]. As a result, it requires two to three years for any recent graduate to become competent in the field of test engineering. There are three main inhibiting factors to teaching design for testability as part of post-secondary education. The first factor is cost. The high cost, and quick obsolescence, of many ATE systems is a barrier to entry to any small- or medium-sized college's engineering department budget. Even accounting for corporate donations, there are hidden costs, such as facilities and equipment maintenance, which make ATE prohibitively expensive. Moreover, in the United States, all engineering curricula must be accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). It is an arduous process, even for such well-worn topics as electrical engineering or mechanical engineering. A department chair is unlikely to risk the department's accreditation, or prolong the accreditation process, by including an exotic topic such as DFT or diagnostics. Finally, it is the goal of most institutions that their students will obtain employment upon graduation. To that end, curricula are often tailored to the demands of local employers. If surrounding industry is not asking for skilled diagnostic or DFT engineers, then there is no incentive for an engineering department to include it in a degree curriculum. This paper explores each of these factors in depth, and provides mitigations for overcoming the challenges that each presents.