Page 20 - EngineerIt January 2021

PANEL DISCUSSION

Software-defined testing versus

traditional (hard box) instruments

oftware-defined instrumentation is part of the current digital transformation
Participating in the initiatives, where everything is software-defined something! In our panel discussion
discussion were: S“Will software-defined test instruments replace box-type instruments?” (or hand-held
as some refer to it), we engaged three experts in the measurement field. Taking part in a
virtual discussion were Dr Wynand Louw, CEO of NMISA, Steve Sydney, executive director
of NLA SA and Stephen Plumb of Test Dynamics.

The main question we put to the panel was
“Are box instruments doomed?”

Steve Sydney: " I don't think they're doomed at all. And I don't think we will see the end of
box-type or hand-held instruments. I guess a little will depend on what you mean by box
style and software-defined instruments. My personal view is that as long as we need
people, we're going to need devices which can be used where people are employed. I think
that in many cases, where many things are done by systems, people forget that at the end
of the day, if there are real problems, somebody must fix the problems. I would call box-
Dr Wynand Louw type instruments hand-held instruments, or devices which are self-contained. I don't
disagree that there isn't a role for further development of software-defined instruments”.

Stephen Plumb: "From our perspective it's really just two different approaches. If you're
doing fault finding in the field, traditional hand-held box instruments still have a place
because people are familiar and comfortable with that form factor. At the end of the day,
you can still automate a box instrument. But where we really see the software-defined
instruments having the strongest value is in an integrated approach where there's a smaller
footprint, more measurements required, higher speeds required, more test throughput. And
fundamentally I think, in the automated production test environment, or generally in the
automated environment, that's where we see the strongest value proposition. For example,
a hardware developer might still be more comfortable sitting with the scope on his desk,
and although both can achieve the same outcome, if that's where the hardware developer
feels comfortable, then good for him. Once you start automating that process in the
production, software-defined instruments seem to make a lot more sense.
Steve Sydney
Dr Wynand Louw: “I agree with Steve Sydney and Stephen Plumb that the box-type
instruments are not going to disappear, but I think that they will be more integrated with
more automation. Our role is to ensure that we digitise the International System of Units
(SI) in the first place. So, it must be machine readable. We are also starting a process
whereby at the BIPM level, we will make sure that all the data bases with information
about the measurement capabilities of the national metrology institutes are machine
readable; this will ensure that systems can basically start to automatically interact with
those data bases, read information, and also send information for diagnostics. This is
where we see the role of national metrology institutes changing. Currently of course,
we mostly do a physical calibration of an instrument. It comes to our site where we
calibrate against our standards, traceable to the national measurement standard. We also
do on-site calibrations and I foresee that we will, more and more, get requests for online
calibration of instruments. It's a very interesting time for us. I believe the technologies will
be disruptive, compared to the ways that we are currently doing things. But there are very
Stephen Plumb exciting times ahead.

EngineerIT | December 2020 / January 2021 | 18