Today we all feel the pressure of containing cost and doing more with less.  In the face of such pressures, time consuming or seemingly costly activities tend to get minimized or cut.  How many times have we heard about such things as periodic maintenance getting deferred to reduce near-term expenses?  It’s a balancing of risk that’s often hard to evaluate quantitatively.  System acceptance testing is another area where we commonly see risky cost avoidance.  The time and effort required to plan and execute proper acceptance testing clearly adds cost to a system, but the question is whether the risk outweighs the benefit.  Obviously a lot of people are considering this question and are trying to bring themselves up to speed on the topic.  The article on Factory Acceptance Testing has been number one on LabAutopedia this year, and it’s not because it’s such entertaining reading! 

For most laboratory automation systems, there are two main opportunities for system acceptance testing – at the factory prior to shipping (Factory Acceptance Testing – FAT) and at the users site as a system is installed (Site Acceptance Testing – SAT).  To make either truly effective, the purchasing party should have developed a list of acceptance criteria as part of their process of creating a Functional Requirement Document (FRD) prior entering into a contractual arrangement with a Technology Provider (vendor).  These acceptance criteria form the eventual basis for an acceptance testing protocol, and since they are included in the FRD, should be well known to all involved in the project early on.  In other words, acceptance testing criteria should come as a surprise to no one if a good FRD is created and shared. 

Of course, this takes time and effort from the eventual system owners, and time is money.  Creating an FRD is also not any fun, believe me!  However, like many things, having once created an FRD, each successive FRD is easier to do.  A lot of it has to do with ordered thought and process, like packing for a long vacation.  It’s easier to do once you have a template from a previous exercise.  The depth and detail of your FRD should also scale with the project at hand.  Purchasing purely commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment requires a less extensive FRD than a complex, custom integrated system.  So, with experience, creating a good FRD need not be a hugely time-consuming and costly experience.  And it will definitely save you time and expense down the road. 

Some would ask whether it’s really necessary to do both FAT and SAT procedures.  Are they not very much the same procedures?  Could we not, for instance, save time and travel expense by only doing a SAT?  In truth, both procedures are, as stated above, derived from the same acceptance criteria and will in fact be similar.  But there are some key differences.  Problems encountered during FAT are much less costly to fix at the vendor or integrator site, where there is a concentration of resources and expertise.  Ideally, the vendor should execute the FAT protocol prior to the arrival of any customer representatives, so that any difficult (lengthy) to fix problems are out of the way.  This will allow the customer visit to serve as a cost-effective combination of FAT and training. 

SAT may repeat most or all elements of FAT for the purpose of determining if any problems have arisen due to system shipping or reassembly.  However, depending on the project, SAT may also test elements that can only be done at the user site, such as any chemistry or biology related acceptance criteria, or any criteria related to interfacing with site services, such as networking, data storage or utilities. 

So, in an era of cost containment, the most effective way to keep a lid on the costs related to FAT and SAT is to do the process well and take advantage of experience to streamline the process.  Doing the process well involves clear and abundant communication among all project parties, spending time up front creating a quality FRD and choosing a good technology provider.  A good system integrator / vendor should be very experienced at creating FAT/SAT protocols, especially if given detailed acceptance criteria within an FRD.  A smooth FAT/SAT lends itself to quality in-depth user training, so the value of the time investment is doubled.  A thorough FAT/SAT will minimize the time it takes to get systems running productively, contributing to the system Return on Investment (ROI).

Until next time,

Domo Arigato, Mr. Roboto