Uh oh. I always cringe when I hear "at the moment" used in justifying purchasing criteria.


Well, it's good that you recognize the need for something more appropriate. Just because that's how it was done in the past doesn't mean that's how it should be done in the future.

What software is being used for the layout? It would be wise to consider a package that generates schematics that this software can understand. Why would you want your layout team to redraw the schematic? Outside of being a useless duplication of work you will have already done, you introduce a new chance for human error.


Just about anyone that's designing hardware professionally can benefit from these sorts of packages. If nothing else, it's a warm fuzzy feeling you get when you send off your Gerber files for manufacturing, knowing that at the very least, what you sent matches the original schematics you made when you first conceived the circuit. I've been saved from my own stupidity by layout vs. schematic functionality on multiple occasions. These mistakes are costly, both in terms of the hard costs associated with the incorrect boards and parts wasted on them, the labor associated with the debugging and reordering, all the time wasted while doing this, and of course, the frustration. Before long, the extra costs can readily outweigh the savings of selecting a less than state-of-the-art package.

Simply stated, I am a big believer in the notion of having the right tools and knowing how to use them; it is one of the most important contributors to getting the job done right the first time.

--Sasha Jevtic