UPDATE:
The key distinction I think I was missing was that characterization happens on the bench (as opposed to on an engineering pad or with a computer simulation). It is empirical.
There are other important notions in the background, like we want to understand a device's actual behavior well enough to reliably deploy it in an actual system in an actual environment, and this is what motivates us to characterize.
I encourage you to review all the answers.
Apologies to respondents and readers for any mismatch between question and answers resulting from my edits attempting to make it less a matter of opinion.
I got my BSEE in 1986, and promptly started a career in software development. Now that I'm "reclaiming" my electrical engineering education, I've had occasion to read quite a bit and watch a lot of videos on EE topics.
I've been struck by how often the word "characterize" has arisen in the discussion. It has never been accompanied by a definition for its use in this context, but that's not terrifically surprising. I'm familiar with the dictionary definition of course, but there seem to be connotations that are not immediately clear to me, like:
- "Why would a EE invest time in characterizing a device or instrument?"
- "What would be his or her primary objectives in doing so? What outcomes, once achieved, would cause them to stop characterizing, considering their objectives achieved?"
- "In what ways am I already naturally occupied by characterizing devices, circuits, or whatever, just that I'm not using that word to describe what I'm doing?"
Can someone help me understand what more specific meaning it connotes when used in an EE context?
It seems to be pretty fundamental to the electrical engineer's role, and perhaps to any engineer's.
Best Answer
Starting at the beginning,
This is one of two basic definitions for characterize (which describes the action you are referring to).
I think this definition makes a lot of sense, in context, but coming at it from the other direction, an instrument or device or circuit that is NOT characterized has not been studied and described in a way that may be necessary to understand its fundamental characteristics.
In general, there are two categories of device that the EE can deal with.. one that is characterized sufficiently.. ie one that is understood well enough to utilize for some purpose -- but not necessarily totally understood.
...and one that is NOT characterized sufficiently. You may characterize a resistor as Red Black Black Gold by visual observation. You understand that to be a 20 Ohm 5% resistor, and have a reasonable belief that the marking is accurate. But if you need a 1/2 watt resistor, but are unsure of what you have, it is not sufficiently characterized.
You may characterize it by putting a certain amount of power through it and observing the temperature rise... eventually deciding that 1/2W through the resistor raises the case temperature 40C, and that this is sufficient in your application.
NOW the resistor is fully characterized to your need.
If the EE does not fully understand the specification of the device or instrument, or the needed information isn't published as a specification, the EE needs to do work to determine if that device or instrument will work in the needed application.
Generally this is a test for suitability. Once these questions have been answered (is this device suitable: yes or no?) it's probably time time to stop.
Any time you seek to understand a device or a circuit in a situation that isn't fully given by its documentation, a characterization step probably is taking place -- especially if that effort involves testing.