选择购买昂贵的ATE设备不是简单的任务，用户除了需要考虑设备的技术是否达到要求，以及能否承受其价格以外，还要对设备及其供应商进行一些长远因素的评估，比如，设备投资是否能在较短期收回？设备的使用风险如何？如何对不同供应商的技术支持和服务作出评判？等等。"金字塔流程"为ATE设备的挑选简化了选择评估过程。

For ATE Companies, small is beautiful.
By Seica

Making the right choice when purchasing expensive capital equipment like an ATE (Automatic Test Equipment) is not an easy task. A number of factors have to be evaluated: does it meet your requirements? Is it affordable? Would you get quick return on investment? What are the associated risks? Buy from a leader or from a smaller player? How do you build the right justification to get management approval? To respond to all of these questions customers use some kind of selection process, which at the end can be schematised into a decision matrix, driven by a few basic parameters. A good frame for this matrix is the "pyramid selection process".

The pyramid selection process.
When faced with the problem of selecting the best product/supplier solution, you go through a process, which involves four successive stages: Price, Performance, Convenience and Reliability (see Fig. 1).

Price of the product is at the first level of the pyramid. As a first qualifier it will determine which products are out of the selection, either because they do not fit the budget or are on a price range not to be considered. When buying a capital equipment, like an ATE, the cost-of-ownership is probably a better qualifier, and can be used instead, as it will not only evaluate solutions in terms of the initial price, but rather on the overall cost across say 3 to 5 years.

Performance is again mainly related to the product, though it should also be expanded to the services the vendor provides. As ATEs become more and more commodities, it is nowadays difficult to differentiate products on performances. Buying on specifications is rarely a winning approach. However, if the user is looking for a specific characteristic of the product, than a careful analysis on related performances can become a strong qualifier.

Convenience is a parameter that strongly relates both to the product and to the supplier. It expresses how easily it is for the end user to adopt, deploy and get advantages out of the chosen solution. Concerning the product, for example, convenient parameters could range from the size of the ATE to perfectly fit the factory facility, to the ability to re-use existing fixtures and/or test programs, to the availability of a large number of test houses supplying services. Concerning the supplier, convenient parameters include the location of support offices, the language (other than English!) spoken, and, of course, the payment conditions.

Reliability is the last element of the selection pyramid. It is intended on a wide sense: once we have screened the best solutions in terms of price, performance and convenience, a question remains on the long-term stability of the supplier and of the chosen product. ATEs, in particular for military/aerospace applications, have a long life and the ability of the chosen solution to be maintained for long time (or of the chosen vendor to be still around), might become a predominant selection factor.

Going through this selection process brings sometimes-surprising results and the initial forecasted choice might be completely reversed. Of course we all know the story that "nobody was ever fired for buying an IBM PC", though few of us know that IBM's marketing created the story and, as far as we know, nobody was either ever fired for buying a Korean PC. So, we shall try to analyse more in detail this selection process when an ATE must be purchased, comparing the choice of buying from a large corporation or from a smaller company and we shall perhaps be surprised on the conclusion.                 

Choosing an ATE.
When buying capital equipment like an ATE, in the first step of price, we shall expect a small/medium size supplier to offer better prices than a large multinational. The price of a product is confined in a window where the upper limit is the market condition and the bottom limit is the cost to the supplier. The market condition reflects the competitive response to the demand and offer, and cannot, in a sane market, be changed by a single company. The cost to the supplier on the other hand, depends on cost of engineering, cost of goods and manufacturing, cost of sales, administrative costs and the expected acceptable operating margins. Unlike what happens for consumer products, where economy of scale favours the large corporations, for capital equipment like an ATE almost all above costs are higher for a large corporation than for a small/medium size company. An ATE division of a large corporation might be internally charged for up to 10% for administrative costs. Cost of sales, to maintain a large structure across the world and huge budgets for marketing and advertising can represent 25% or more of the overall cost. And cost of engineering will need to subsidize large investments on R&D to be first on the market with innovations. At the end, this might translate in substantial differences with a small/medium size company that operates with simpler internal administration, controls sales costs and sometimes accepts to follow the trends rather than drive them. With a lower product cost, hence a lower product price, buying from a small/medium size company will consequently meet also a lower cost of ownership. Cost of services and support are substantially lower and so are customisations that are easily accommodated in a smaller structure than in a huge multinational.

At a first glance, one shall expect that the lower price of the ATE will translate in lower product's performance. In fact, this is rarely the case. On one side, the ATE technology is now mature. Products are becoming commodities and technology is available of-the-shelf at affordable costs to everybody. Even if large companies claim to put larger budgets in R&D, their infrastructure is often so heavy that innovation will spring more quickly from the agile engineering department of a smaller company. Furthermore, pure performance is meaningless if it is not bent to your specific requirements. That often demands a minimum degree of change or customisation, a word that is hated by large ATE companies, as it involves, with their structure, large time planning and investments.

When it comes to convenience, dealing with a smaller company carries a number of advantages. You talk directly to the top management rather than going through a complex chain of command. Relationships are more straightforward and you know whom you shake hands with. Though a smaller company has inevitably less resources to respond to your requirements, they are usually much more attentive a fast in reacting. Large companies often take large-scale decisions, like restructuring their support infrastructure centralising and automating operations from some remote place; you should question what is the advantage to you, if you were used to a local, friendly support. Getting a simple product change is usually friendly agreed between engineers, but becomes a 12 months process with substantial NRE investment for a large corporation. For all of these reasons, products from smaller companies are also more convenient to use, because they incorporate a number of "makes sense" features that simplify utilisation. Being used to spend more time talking with the end user rather than with top management, the smaller company is more agile in responding to the needs of the field.

Finally, when approaching the issue of reliability (with the meaning we have previously defined), choosing to stay with a large corporation would be very appealing. After all, the stability and commitment of a large corporation will represent a safer bet that choosing to partner with a small/medium company whose product might be soon discontinued and the company itself might risk to be out of business. Surprisingly, the history of ATE companies has so far contradicted this statement. Some large corporations have abandoned, with no regrets, the ATE segment of their activity to concentrate in more profitable business. Big ATE companies have been purchased, and their original products have been quickly discontinued. The big crisis after September 11, 2001 has brought dramatic restructuring on large corporations often eliminating unprofitable product lines, reducing services, cutting on structures and personnel. On the contrary, small/medium size companies are weathering well through the storm, gaining market share and diversifying their products. With a more agile structure, and commitment and focus to the ATE business, they are better survivors than the large companies. But there is more to be considered. Let's try to change the prospective and rather than looking at what the supplying company is for us, let's look at what we are for the supplying company. If we are a small/medium size company, we are certainly not on the priority list of large corporations. Their choices are more and more driven by the business rule of 20/80 (20% of the customers represent 80% of the business) and, if we our out of it, we will deserve little attention.  But even if we are part of a large company, we might be better in control by dealing with a small/medium size player than with a company of similar size. At the end, one should ask the question of what brings more security: to be a small customer of a huge corporation or to be an important customer of a smaller company?

Small is beautiful.
ATE is becoming a mature market. ATE products are commodities and companies will tend to differentiate in flexibility, ability to customize, quality and availability of services, within price constraints that require substantial attention to each cost. Market trends today seem to favour small/medium size, well established suppliers who are able to cope with these conditions and still maintain profitable margins. It is unclear whether this market would in the future be still attractive to large corporations. In any event, for today's buyers the choice seems to indicate that, with ATE companies, small is beautiful.

SEICA: A small is beautiful" ATE company.
Seica is based in Ivrea, Italy at the feet of the Alpes, a beautiful place where quality of life is high and cost of operations very competitive. Since its launch in 1986, Seica has developed a range of products and services that meet the specific testing needs of the electronics manufacturing industry. Seica's innovative test solutions are being used across the globe to improve quality, increase productivity and save money in automobile, military and consumer markets.

The company started out developing in-circuit test equipment for OEMs in domestic industries. However, it has since refined and developed innovative and visionary solutions to match the requirements of specialist sectors such as defense and aerospace in which stringent standards for product quality, reliability and support are mandatory. 

The company itself has also grown, both physically and geographically, now employing more than 80 people and is represented on four continents with offices or fully trained sales agents throughout Europe, China, Brazil and the United States.

In addition to the design and manufacture of test systems, Seica also offers test program and fixture development services, in order to provide 'Turnkey' solutions for all its customers, including the design and manufacture of custom' systems and modules in both civilian and defense sectors.

Seica's customers include large multinationals and small companies in Italy, Europe, America and Asia. For Seica, no matter their name, they are all important customers.

From the beginning, Seica has always been committed to continuous innovation, dedicating over 30% of its Human Resources to R&D and maintaining a highly qualified, specialized pre and post technical sales support structure. In 2001 Seica obtained ISO 9001 certification, confirming the high quality of its products and services. Seica's innovation is so appreciated that some of its products were selected and distributed for a period of time by big names like GenRad and later Teradyne. However, Seica has always defended and maintained fiercely its independence.

From the simplest test rig and application to the most demanding test solution, Seica takes pride in positioning itself as a partner with core values of innovation, integrity and commitment to each and every customer.

That's why we say: our success is a measure of ours.