Speaking Of Reliability: Friends Discussing Reliability Engineering Topics | Warranty | Plant Maintenance

How to Start First Job Abstract Carl and Fred sharing suggestions for new reliability engineers on what to do when starting your first job. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss their own experiences and lessons learned on how best to begin work as a new reliability engineer. Topics include: What to do on your first day on the job. If possible, seek a mentor to help you getting started on your new job When being introduced to new team members, ask individuals for time to talk in more depth; learn from them the “rules of the road” Soft skills are essential; reference chapters 11 and 12 of our new book. Learn terminology that relates to your new job. Always do what you are asked to do; but, try to do *more* than asked. Get a reputation for high quality and value Learn on the job, extra study, talk with people First impressions are important You will make mistakes, how you react and learn from mistakes is very important Don’t be afraid to ask questions; be curious. Know your objectives and what you are supposed to do; know your deliverable Take extra time to learn company procedures and processes When working remote, turn on cameras; learn to read body language Request feedback from management and internal customers; never be defensive. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes   The post SOR 883 How to Start First Job appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Operator Error? Abstract Carl and Fred discussing a question from an Inside FMEA reader on the subject of Process FMEA. It brings up a general topic of root cause, and whether assigning the cause to various forms of operator error is useful. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss how to determine the Cause in Process FMEA. Topics include: Deming teaches us to focus on the process, not the person. Deming’s red bead experiment. Westinghouse experiment on efficacy of measurements Erroring proof the design and the process can improve the manufacturing or assembly process Robust design can help reduce process sensitivity Some Process FMEAs use “Operator Error” as most common Cause; better is to determine and describe the deficiency in the process itself. Operator training and work instructions are both important Make designs as easy to assemble as possible; Design for Manufacturing/Assembly What about human element, if manufacturing process no longer needs human involvement? Improve the process, don’t blame the operator Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes   The post SOR 882 Operator Error? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Can You Change an Organization? Abstract Chris and Fred discuss if it is possible to change any organization? Which is a topical issue for reliability engineers who feel that no one takes it seriously. Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss Topics include: What are the key barriers? Lots. It starts with organizations that have been doing ‘the same thing’ for so long, that people’s ability to do the ‘same things’ is now a valued character trait and is now so embedded in the culture that it is hard to change. And then there is the perception that the challenge is insurmountable (which is a leadership issue). And then there are organizations that worship bureaucracy and process (not critical thinking). Sometimes people stop listening to the key players (and consultants with the same message are taken way more seriously). Leadership needs to be invested and supportive. And that means knowing when to get out of the way. In reality, if leadership is not interested, the scope for change is limited. For example, Western militaries have struggled with reliability since World War II. Western militaries have lost virtually every ‘war’ since World War II (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, … ) Western Military Leaders have never been accountable for these losses. The same leaders are not accountable for poor reliability. And so if failure is not a thing, success is not worth pursuing. ‘Industrial tourists’ or ‘take a turn leaders’ never result in long-term commitment. Many leaders are ‘fast-tracked’ or part of the chosen few who spend short stints of time leading a vast array of groups within an organization for the purpose of giving them ‘exposure’ or ‘experience’ or make them become ‘well-rounded’ en route to being part of the highest leadership group (generals, admirals, directors, chief ‘X’ officer …). This means the high-performers are pre-selected before they have a chance to perform. And instead of leading the engineering, supply chain, or manufacturing organizations, they are then advised from the bottom up to help them get ‘well-rounded.’ But there is no long-term commitment, nor genuinely inspiring leadership … because they don’t know what they are doing. So the talent leaves, because they can’t get the jobs that the ‘industrial tourists’ get. You do need to try. You do need to run at that brick wall. You might be surprised how making cogent arguments for reliability engineering to happen can take you. But if you sustain multiple concussions from hitting that wall … its up to you to find another organization with a less insurmountable brick wall. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes The post SOR 881 Can You Change an Organization? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Bathtub Curve Flaws Abstract Carl and Fred discussing a reader question having to do with the use of the reliability bathtub curve, including the efficacy of the curve itself. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss what is right or wrong with the reliability bathtub curve. Topics include: Is the “bathtub curve” more fictional than real? The concept that there are three distinct areas of failure rates over time is not useful. Introduction to Reliability tutorials often teach this curve. Based on experience, we have rarely seen a “flat” part of the curve. Discussion around why people still assume an exponential distribution The most important thing is not where you are on the failure rate vs time plot; but rather what failure mechanisms are being encountered. “The Future of FMEA” article stimulated a reader question about models Eyes wide open: Be aware of the assumptions and limitations of models, before using them When using models, you need to be in for the long term, and work to improve the model over time. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes   The post SOR 880 Bathtub Curve Flaws appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Biggest Reliability Mistakes Abstract Carl and Fred discussing some of the biggest reliability mistakes they have seen in their careers, and the lessons learned from those mistakes. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss various mistakes that companies make, why they are made, and how they can be avoided. Topics include: Mistake 1: a green energy company designed a system involving stored-energy that is released to reduce overall energy usage; mistake was to design the storage vessel without a safety margin; lesson is to always use a safety margin. Mistake 2: a company added a test every time they ran into a field problem; result was dozens of tests that only addressed known problems; missed potential failures due to new problems; culture did not support prevention; company was too busy to see the process they created. Mistake 3: company equated reliability only with testing; much of reliability is methods that support prevention in design, called design for reliability. Mistake 4: misusing statistics, limiting the number of samples due to cost concerns and assuming the results will still be valid; example is a company that assumed exponential distribution and only running tests simulating one year even though the product target life was ten years. Mistake 5: thinking that a predicted number is real; beware when a reliability prediction gets justified without adequate rational or basis. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes   The post SOR 879 Biggest Reliability Mistakes appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

The Worth of a Reliability Engineer Abstract Chris and Fred discuss how much a reliability engineer (potentially like you) … is worth. Want to know? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss the worth of reliability engineers, which might be useful when you are trying to work out how much you should be paid. They are different things … but not unrelated. But how much is a reliability engineer (potentially like you) is worth? Topics include: How do you add value to an organization? Many organizations simply want ‘reliability engineers’ to complete certain tasks that contracts, standards, or a sense of guilt demand to be completed. This often does add value, as all this does is give the bureaucratic or process ‘façade’ of progress. But doing arbitrary things means that you won’t actually make a more reliable product, or reduce the maintenance burden. So how do you add value to an organization? You need to start with value. How much money does a 2 % increase in reliability yield? How much money does a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) save you when we prevent production crises and delays … without ever being able to know which ones and by how much? It’s hard to add line items in budgets for ‘things that never happen.’ But if your organization doesn’t have the answers to this, then perhaps you need to find them yourself. Then work out how YOU add value. The side effect is that we work out what activities we need to do … and what activities that we might have been arbitrarily completing for years we don’t need to do anymore. What is your role in this? But ‘value’ can be based on many things … how do I simplify this? Market share? Spare parts? Yield? Profit margin? Warranty period and reliability? Maintenance overhead? Necessary tools? Perhaps start by asking whoever makes the executive decisions about what keeps them up at night. What is it that bothers them the most. Is it time to market? Then talk about how a FMEA can accelerate time to market through minimizing delays and the costs associated with them. FMEAs do lots of other things as well … but if time to market matters the most, then this is the metric you need to focus on. Link yourself to value. Do all of the above … and own it! Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes The post SOR 878 The Worth of a Reliability Engineer appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

So Many Tools Abstract Dianna and Fred discussing how there are so many tools that are available for quality and reliability applications, and approaches to take when figuring out what to use. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss that there are so many tools in the quality and reliability engineering toolbox that it can be difficult to choose what to do first. Topics include: Figuring out what tools to propose when planning. Approaches to choosing and using tools, and how awareness and bias affects our choices. Resources to learn more. hypothesis testing, Scientific American, and chalk Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Show Notes There are many lists of quality and reliability tools. The 7 basic quality tools, 37 tools of lean, X ways to do DOE. There are so many tools to help us solve problems. How do you figure out what tools to use when planning? Awareness is key. Just increasing your awareness of these tools will help you to better plan to solve problems. Work to improve awareness of all these tools: Be curious. Research resources. Read articles and magazines. Get a reference book on the tools. Go to websites and subscribe to be exposed to ideas. Chances are, there’s probably already a tool for that. Get a mentor. Watch how others use these tools to solve problems. Ask others. Review options with your team. The methods, the results you want, and the scope of the problem will help you choose an appropriate tool. Be encouraged to try things. We encourage you to check these things: That your results align with reality. “Fake it to make it” philosophies don’t really work when solving problems. You might be biased to using your favorite tool. A way to check for these things is to ask for help and get others involved. Stay curious!   We talked about these resources: The Process of Reliability Engineering (accendoreliability.com) Schenkelberg, F., Carlson, C. S. (2023). The Process of Reliability Engineering: Creating Reliability Plans That Add Value. United States: FMS Reliability Publishing. Tague, N. R. (2005). The Quality Toolbox. United States: ASQ Quality Press. Accendo Webinars – Accendo Reliability Podcast Blog – Quality During Design Related Topics: SOR 466 Reliability Organization Self Awareness(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) Why the Maintenance Deficiency?(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 877 So Many Tools appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Case Study Abstract Chris and Fred discuss the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) … A US Department of Defense vehicle that can perhaps teach us a lot about reliability (especially in the field of military and defense). Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) – an armored vehicle that is being used as a ‘general service’ vehicle that is intended to provide what the Army Jeep once did … but this time with a lot more protection and capability. So what has this got to do with reliability? Topics include: How did this start? The US Department of Defense essentially had a large number of companies design different types of armored vehicles from which they would then select the ‘best’ one to go on and become the JLTV. The vehicle that Oshkosh designed appeared to be the best … based on reliability performance. Why do we know this? The vehicle that Lockheed Martin designed came in second. So Lockheed Martin lodged a protest complaining that their vehicle was not selected. In response, the Department of Defense pointed out that when all the vehicles were subjected to reliability demonstration testing, the Oshkosh vehicle appeared to be three times more reliable than the requirement. Plus, five times more reliable than Lockheed Martin’s vehicle. That’s right … Lockheed Martin’s vehicle did not meet the reliability requirement. So Oshkosh was asked to build thousands of ‘JLTVs’ … but they turned out to be unreliable. Reports to the US Congress revealed that once these vehicles were mass-produced, Oshkosh JLTVs did not meet the reliability requirement, with issues revolving around engine wiring, braking systems, tire system issues and doors not opening properly when they were supposed to. There were lots of other problems as well, including poorly written manuals, onboard prognostics not being particularly accurate, overly complex subsystems, and plenty of others. Fast forward a few years … and Oshkosh’s  JLTV design is now being built by another company called AM General. AM General was coincidentally one of the companies that were unsuccessful in convincing the Department of Defense to purchase their design for the JLTV. We don’t know exactly why the Department of Defense chose to ask AM General to build these vehicles … but perhaps we can guess? Let’s not forget PR or spin … An article appeared in Forbes that was written by someone who is part of a military industry think tank … that is coincidentally funded in part by Oshkosh. And in that article, there is much complaint about this decision .. including a claim that Oshkosh has a proven track record in reliability. The article includes some other numbers that only someone intimately locked in with Oshkosh might know. Claims that Oshkosh only has a 7 % operating margin (and therefore anyone else who wins the contract on price is clearly quoting unreasonable numbers) is made by someone who is more a marketer than an engineering analyst. What is the main takeaway? … why would you design something that is amazingly reliable, only to have terrible manufacturing take it all away? Military contractors and customers are particularly horrible at this … as they almost always focus reliability ‘demonstration’ on pre-production prototypes. But as this case study shows, reliability has never been demonstrated. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics: RM 055: A Conversation with SMTA President Dr. Martin Anselm(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) Anticipatory Leaders Leverage Future Facts (TM)(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 876 Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Case Study appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

What Should a Reliability Engineer Do Abstract Chris and Fred discuss what should a reliability engineer ‘do’? Isn’t this obvious? … is it? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss what should a reliability engineer do. Perhaps this is ‘common knowledge.’ But one of the many issues with ‘common knowledge’ is that it is not as common as you might think. And there are a lot of people out there who are excited to become reliability engineers … but as soon as they try and find out what they are supposed to do, things get murky. Topics include: Reliability engineering is not ‘measuring reliability.’ ‘Measuring reliability’ can be important, but it is not as important as making reliability happen. And by ‘measuring reliability’ we mean things like reliability tests to work out how long we think things will last, the likelihood of things failing in warranty periods and so on. If that is all you do … then you are not engineering reliability. In the same way that a coach of an Olympic sprinter will (from time to time) measure how fast their sprinter is, most of their role involves working on strength, conditioning, techniques, mindsets and so on. A reliability engineer is not a ‘title.’ Many organizations anoint someone as being a reliability engineer … simply because they want to think that their organization does reliability. This is not the case … and you need virtually everyone in your organization to ‘be’ a reliability engineer for at least some part of most days. A reliability engineer implements the ‘reliability strategy’ of your organization. This might mean that the reliability engineer for an organization that values Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) oversees the training, facilitation, monitoring and ‘maintenance’ of the collective FMEA skillset. He or she is not doing FMEAs for their team … they are coaching their team on how to do it. And part of this is motivating the team to see FMEAs as useful, a good use of time, and likely to start saving everyone lots of time and money ‘now.’ A reliability engineer needs to understand what it is that adds value. Not each successful reliability strategy involves FMEAs. Perhaps an organization needs to revolve around Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) and how it can quickly identify the weak points of early prototypes. Perhaps it is another activity. Perhaps there is a blend of activities. And once we work out what adds value … that becomes part of the strategy that the reliability engineer needs to implement. It is not what most textbooks say. Or at least feel like they are saying. Most textbooks correctly characterize themselves as a toolbox. It is still up to the reliability engineer to work out which tool needs to be used. And when. And when not. If the only tool you use (or like) is a hammer, then everything becomes a nail. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches. Download Audio RSS Related Topics: SOR 484 FMEA: Top Down or Bottom Up(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) Getting Started Learning Reliability Engineering(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 875 What Should a Reliability Engineer Do appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Redundancy by Design Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing the use of backups and system redundancy in the design of electronics for increased reliability. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss how a company that wants to use two combined stresses simultaneously, at three intensity levels, but not the same stress combinations at each level may not provide useful life estimate data. Topics include: Determining the life estimates of a component or system using an accelerated life test with one stress stimulus is difficult without knowing the wear-out mechanisms that drive the device to failure. Using combination stresses makes the quantification of product life determination even more challenging. For example, a cracked solder joint will propagate with either vibration or thermal cycling, and combining those two makes it more difficult to quantify the relation to the field stresses. If one is using HALT, which is not for quantifying life, it is recommended that the first application of stress is to use a single stress to the operation limit, then later combine stresses to accelerate the precipitation of latent defects. The idea is to keep it simple to make it easier to determine the physics of the accelerated stress-induced failures. Doing an accelerated test to quantify life requires that one know what the life cycle stress environments that the product will be subjected to. Most electronics, especially portable or mobile systems will have significant variations across the world and user applications, and therefore many different rates of fatigue damage. Kirk’s 30 years of doing testing and failure analysis is that the vast majority of failures in the early years of use are from assignable causes, which are either errors in design, manufacturing of components, or final assembly. The life entitlement of most electronics is well beyond its technological obsolescence, and finding and eliminating the causes of latent defects is much more cost-effective than the delusion that complex electronics systems’ nominal life entitlement can be determined through stress testing. We do not know the actual lifetimes of today’s electronics, as most get discarded before wearing them out. Enjoy an episode of Speaking of Reliability. Where you can join friends as they discuss reliability topics. Join us as we discuss topics ranging from design for reliability techniques to field data analysis approaches.   Download Audio RSS Show Notes You can now purchase the most recent recording of Kirk Gray’s Hobbs Engineering 8 (two 4 hour sessions) hour Webinar “Rapid and Robust Reliability Development 2022 HALT & HASS Methodologies Online Seminar” from this link. Please click on this link to access a relatively new analysis of traditional reliability prediction methods article from the US ARMY and CALCE titled  “Reliability Prediction – Continued Reliance on a Misleading Approach” For more information on the newest discovery testing methodology here is a link to the book “Next Generation HALT and HASS: Robust design of Electronics and Systems” written by Kirk Gray and John Paschkewitz. Related Topics: When You Should (And Shouldn’t) Use Redundant Equipment To Improve System Reliability(Opens article in a new browser tab) SOR 356 How Reliable Does Your Product Need to Be(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 874 Redundancy by Design appeared first on Accendo Reliability.