The issue is often around the tools
LabVIEW and TestStand can be central parts of a serious test workflow. The problem is not automatically the tool. The problem often appears around the tool: in setup assumptions, script calls, manual steps, file naming, report handling, or review handoffs.
That is why the first diagnostic should map one workflow before proposing a replacement.
Common handoff gaps
Look for handoff points such as:
- Stand setup performed before the sequence starts.
- LabVIEW code called by a TestStand step.
- Python, C#, or command-line scripts called from the sequence.
- Vector, dSPACE, or HIL tools producing context outside the final report.
- Manual notes that explain why a run should or should not be trusted.
- Result files copied into a separate reporting or ticketing process.
Each handoff is a place where evidence can lose meaning.
What to map first
For one workflow, write down:
- What starts the workflow.
- Which tool owns each step.
- Which context is passed automatically.
- Which context is passed manually.
- Which files become evidence.
- Who reviews the result and what they still need to ask.
The map should make the workflow visible enough to decide whether orchestration, evidence capture, or a smaller process change is the right next step.
A safe way to discuss improvement
Avoid starting with “replace the old stack.” That creates unnecessary risk and resistance. Start with one painful handoff and ask what evidence or setup context would remove ambiguity.
Public reference points
Keep the workflow map separate from the vendor documentation. NI’s TestStand XML Reports documentation explains the XML and ATML report formats TestStand can generate, and NI’s ATML Test Results Reports documentation describes the ATML result schema used around automated test environments.
Those pages help you understand what the report format can carry. The handoff audit below asks a different question: which setup, version, script, and review context still lives outside the report for your specific workflow?
For teams running the same sequence across multiple stands, the TestStand multi-station management diagnostic turns this into a station identity and report handoff map.
Quick self-check: LabVIEW / TestStand handoff audit
Pick one LabVIEW or TestStand workflow you touched in the last month.
| Handoff point | Check |
|---|---|
| Setup → Sequence | Does the sequence know how the stand was configured before it started? ☐ Yes / ☐ No |
| LabVIEW VI → TestStand step | Are VI version and parameter assumptions visible after the run? ☐ Yes / ☐ No |
| External script call | If the sequence calls Python, C#, or a batch script – are the script version and arguments captured? ☐ Yes / ☐ No |
| TestStand → Report | Does the final report include enough setup and sequence context for a reviewer to trust it without asking questions? ☐ Yes / ☐ No |
| Report → Decision | Does the person who signs off see the same evidence every time, or do they need extra context from email/Slack/phone? ☐ Yes / ☐ No |
| Engineer → Engineer | If the person who wrote the VI left, could someone else reproduce the run? ☐ Yes / ☐ No |
What your answers mean:
- 5-6 Yes: Handoffs are reasonably protected. A paid diagnostic might expose deeper automation opportunities, but the workflow is not fragile.
- 3-4 Yes: There is a specific handoff gap worth fixing. Book a free workflow review – 30 minutes, bring one workflow context.
- 0-2 Yes: The workflow depends heavily on unwritten knowledge. Map it with the diagnostic kit before the next tool decision.
No tool replacement is implied by this check. It is about the workflow around LabVIEW and TestStand, not the tools themselves.
Understand evidence and setup handoff gaps around LabVIEW and TestStand workflows.