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

Fast vs Thorough Abstract Carl and Fred discussing the need to be fast in smaller or startup companies. Reliability engineering can adapt to a fast culture and support lean product development, without compromising essential tasks. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the product development process in small companies, balancing the need to be lean and fast with the necessity of being thorough and not miss anything important. Topics include: What is the culture at startup companies? Quality and reliability can move fast, and still be thorough. Companies (both large and small) need to be fast-to-market, meet budget constraints and achieve high reliability. The difference with small companies is the path to meet the objectives may not be the same. It is critical to understand the essence of reliability methods and work with the smaller teams to achieve the goals. What does it take to be thorough and fast at the same time? Develop a sense for what is important, compared to what is trivial or not important. Don’t ignore any anomalies, don’t ignore failures. Advocate for and speak up about reliability issues. Understand the mechanisms of failure and support decisions that support reliability in design. FMEA can be fast, but it must be supported by the right team for higher-risk areas. Develop the value of willingness to take a stand, when needed. Have open and frank discussions, and be willing to challenge people. Show Notes has link to article on why FMEAs need to be team based. There is always time to do FMEA on critical areas. Having an “FMEA point of view” Use “Preliminary Risk Assessment” to determine which vital few areas need to be addressed with FMEA. 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 Why FMEA Needs to be Team-Based (accendoreliability.com) The post SOR 765 Fast vs Thorough appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Regression Metrics Abstract Chris and Fred discuss ‘regression metrics’ … or numbers that software packages spit out at us to suggest if a statistical model is ‘good’ or not. But if this is the only thing you (as an engineer) rely on to understand your system … you are already in trouble! Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss how software and textbook processes can sometimes give us a single number that tells us how good a fit one model is compared to another. But you can’t just rely on this number … because you still don’t understand what is going on. Topics include: Think of sports. Many North American sports have events called ‘combines.’ This is where young, hopeful athletes come together and conduct several physical tests. This can include a 40 yard sprint. A vertical jump. Bench press. And lots of other athletic events where raw performance can be measured. Professional teams can then see measured raw athletic performance of prospective athletes. But teams do not select future players based on these numbers alone. They take into consideration skill, sporting ‘IQ’ and of course review how each actually played in lower leagues and university teams and so on. So if professional sporting teams don’t rely on numbers only … why would you when you are trying to understand how your system fails? It gets worse. Many software applications can ‘select’ models for you. But this is dangerous! Why? Because it means you stop thinking for yourself. Many software packages will ‘fit’ models that make no sense even though they might have the best numbers. This can include models that suggest that it is possible for systems to fail at times less than zero! Always understand your process. That might mean you plot your data, understand what parameters mean for models your software is considering or reading more books. If you know your data comes from a failure process involving a component that wears out … and your software suggests you use a model that you know models wear-in … then you should throw it in the bin (and know that you have avoided making lots of bad decisions based on not knowing your process!). Confidence is a measure of YOU. You can get confidence from understanding your process. Or you can get confidence from statistics. One is much better than the other. Do you know which one it is? 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 How to Check a Regression Fit(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 764 Regression Metrics appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Technology Only Goes So Far Abstract Chris and Fred discuss the limits of ‘technology solutions’ … especially when it comes to reliability – mainly because there is always a human being involved! Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss how technology is often used to try and solve reliability challenges – to the extent that we forget that there is a human involved. And they are very hard to engineer right! Topics include: Humans and human error. The first mobile phones were large, heavy, expensive, and intended for a ‘rich and privileged customer base. But the demographic that used these new, clumsy, early mobile phones were tradespeople (plumbers, electricians et cetera). Why? Because instead of having to drive back to an office after each job was completed to find the next job, the tradesperson could instead use the mobile phone to call the office to work out where they had to go next. This saved so much time and money that it made it worthwhile to have these expensive mobile phones on hand. And of course … these phones had to withstand being thrown around in the vehicles and toolboxes of these tradespeople. This is not abuse … and the mobile phone companies that failed to realize this quickly went out of business. Then there was Air France Flight 447. The aircraft involved a new pilot input system. Instead of having a ‘shared’ yoke between the legs of each pilot, the Airbus involved used joysticks that were relatively hidden from view on the right of the pilot & copilot. So when Flight 447 involved the first officer pushing ‘down’ on his joystick and the copilot pulling ‘up,’ the aircraft didn’t really know which one to ‘listen’ to. Nor did the humans involved know what the other was doing. To disastrous consequences. Higher reliability drives bad behaviour. There are lots of commercials on TV right now where the amazing new in-built safety features of cars (like automatic braking, lane assist and so on) seem to ‘normalize’ bad driving. These commercials seem to suggest it is OK to be a distracted driver because the car will save you. But this is not OK … You can’t always design the human out of the system. There is more than one instance of commercial aircraft pilots deliberately crashing. The aircraft were (and remained) reliable. They did exactly what they were commanded to do. But they couldn’t stop a deliberate crash. 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 Building an Effective Work Management System(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 763 Technology Only Goes So Far appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Problem Solving with Customer Service Abstract Dianna and Fred discussing customer service: personal and professional experiences. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss problem solving with customer service. Topics include: partnering with a customer service agent when you’re the customer coordinating with the customer service department when you’re an engineer at the same company consider a focused effort on field data upon a period of initial launch 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 iTunes Stitcher Show Notes We all have experience with customer service. Dianna and Fred consider what makes customer service good (and frustrating). They explore ways we can ensure the customer service that we get, and also that our company gives, is good. We can partner with an agent to help us get the root cause of our own particular issues. We can coordinate with our own customer service department two-fold: to ensure that we get the field failure data we need or want, and to help them to help the customers. And we can be strategic with field monitoring, to closely collect data on launch to be able to quickly address issues that we just didn’t catch earlier. Share your story or reach out! If you’ve got a story about customer service, or a question or comment about what we talked about, let us know. Related Topics Product Reliability and Customer Service(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 762 Problem Solving with Customer Service appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Encouraging New Engineers Abstract Dianna and Fred discussing why and how to encourage new engineers and foster younger generations to consider engineering as a profession. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss how to get new generations involved in engineering. Topics include: Getting active in youth programs. Fostering curiosity by letting others do things for themselves and enabling them to pursue questions and ideas. Creating space and permission for new engineers to “play” – to go figure it out and potentially fail. 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 Fred thinks of the very successful engineers he’s worked with and attributes their success to an inherent curiosity. They talk about giving future and new engineers the space and permission to try things and potentially fail. And to remove the expectations that the new engineers are “experts” and assign them tight deadlines. Instead, give them space to be creative, to pursue questions and ideas, and to be able to iterate on those ideas for success. Dianna and Fred also explore what they notice: that people can lose their curiosity (even young folks). They talk about outreach efforts and ideas to inspire the next generation of engineers. We want to hear from you! Do you have other ideas or tips to help encourage others toward engineering? Let us know… Related Topics SOR 816 Uniqueness of Reliability Engineers(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 761 Encouraging New Engineers appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Dealing with Suppliers Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing dealing with suppliers in dealing with failures in complex interconnected systems. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss the many different responses and challenges that different subsystem suppliers can have when trying to get their help with a reliability issue. Topics include: Much of a suppliers response can be based on how significant a customer you are. If you are 0.1% of their business they are probably not as responsive as an OEM customer who has 70% of their business. If a supplier is selling significant of the same or similar components or subsystems to many different product types and applications and has few issues with the other customers,  they will be more often deny there is an issue if the component still meets the original specifications. Semiconductor component suppliers may have a tendency to assume ESD and EOS (electrical Over-stress) as the reason for failure and dismiss other potential causes because they have seen the same damaged components so often. To be fair, the supplier may have nothing to do with the cause of the EOS as the application of the component may have a poor design margin. Kirk discusses an failure with many of the same damaged varactors. Performing a cross-section and SEM inspection showed the RCA of the failure that the giant component supplier that would be dismissed by the manufacturer if it had been sent back for FA. A suppliers help with solving a reliability issue with their component or subsystems is very dependent on many factors, besides the percentage of  their business they are. Some additional factors are how new is the technology or system they are selling to your application, how many different or similar applications they are selling to, and the long term relationship your engineering team has with them. 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 Kirk with be giving a Hobbs Engineering webinar this July. To register for the July 18th and 19th Hobbs Engineering Webinar follow this link to Rapid and Robust Reliability Development – 2022 HALT & HASS Webinar by Kirk Gray 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 SOR 715 Choosing Reliable Suppliers(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 760 Dealing with Suppliers appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Talking about HALT Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing a basic subject that Kirk has been speaking about for over three decades, Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) and carrying the ideas of Gregg Hobbs, Ph.D. who termed the acronym and methodology Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss a subject that is a new approach that is still controversial for some. Topics include: HALT, The term that Gregg created is really a misnomer as it does not provide a life estimate or prediction, and should be considered a Highly Accelerated Limit Test. So many solid state electronic systems become technologically obsolete and are replaced by more advanced systems before intrinsic wear out ever contributes to failures. A recent recall of Air Fryers for the risk of catching fire most likely would have been found if they would have applied thermal stress to operation and potentially destruct limits. The first step in making a reliable design is to use good design rules as in design for manufacturing and design for testing.  Getting the first prototype to work at time zero is the second step. Batteries, Solar Panels, and IGBT’s (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors) used in power systems that are required to operate more that 10 years can have wear out modes that are critical to the ROI of the system and the intrinsic life expectancy needs to be determined. 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 To register for the upcoming July 18th and 19th Hobbs Engineering Webinar follow this link to Rapid and Robust Reliability Development – 2022 HALT & HASS Webinar by Kirk Gray 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 SOR 003 What is HALT?(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 759 Talking about HALT appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Incomplete Data Abstract Chris and Fred discuss what it means to have incomplete data. Isn’t data just data? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as this thing we call incomplete data. This was prompted from a question we received from an Accendo listener. A piece of equipment has been in service for 8 years … but our listener only had data for the last 4 years. So what can we do? Topics include: Data is often not ‘complete.’ This refers to scenarios where we might test a product, and only observe that it was not working at the end of the test duration. So we know if failed before (for example) 1000 hours of testing … but we don’t know when. Or it was still working at 1 000 hours. So the failure time is greater than 1 000 hours. Then there is ‘expert judgment.’ Many of us don’t like expert judgment. It feels subjective and too prone to biases and ‘nefarious’ types who want to ruin everything. But when you think about it … virtually every decision we make on a daily basis uses expert judgment. So get used to it! So how do we deal with ‘incomplete data?’ You need to modify your statistical inference. You can use the same model to analyze complete versus incomplete data. Data (incomplete or otherwise) is evidence you can use. You just need to modify how your model incorporates 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 Related Topics Four Reasons to Rethink your Reliability Improvement Journey(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 758 Incomplete Data appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

No Such Thing as Safe Abstract Chris and Fred discuss this term we call ‘safe.’ What is ‘safe?’ How can we use the term ‘safe’ in industries that involve a lot of risk? Perhaps there is no such thing as ‘safe?’ Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss what it means for something to be ‘safe.’ And how we demonstrate something to be ‘safe.’ What is safe? Topics include: There is no such thing as ‘safe.’ What? In reality, there is no all-powerful, over-arching idea of what ‘safe’ is. There was a time when society believed that cars without seatbelts were safe. We don’t believe that anymore. It is also much safer to fly in a plane rather than drive a car to the airport. If airplanes caused as many deaths per mile as cars did … society would be outraged! ‘Safe’ has been, and always will be, a subjective idea. So being safe can mean that we are diligent in addressing issues as they arise. Safe can be complying with known approaches to keeping a certain technology ‘safe.’ We sometimes see safety as part of a market-driven approach to engineering. If something is unsafe, then purchasers are less likely to purchase that product, and so there becomes a commercial motivation to produce ‘safe’ products. We sometimes don’t. This is when we have regulatory bodies who outline what ‘safe’ means for a particular product or system. The US Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) are an example of this. If a vehicle complies with the FMVSS, then auto manufacturers can’t be sued for their vehicles being ‘unsafe.’ But this often doesn’t work #1. Look at autonomous vehicles. We are used to the automobile industry being regulated. But the regulators have struggled to come up with any meaningful definition of safety for autonomous vehicles. There are (usually) simple statements about autonomous vehicles ‘doing no harm.’ But how do you prove this? What does a ‘safe’ autonomous vehicle look like? No one has defined this yet. But this often doesn’t work #2. Takata airbags were largely ‘built to standards’ but there were some key design issues that mean that their gas canisters exploded without warning. So regulation doesn’t cover this … nor is Takata not liable for the harm their airbags cause. Remember … there is no such thing as ‘safe.’ The safest thing for you to do each day is not leave your house. But this is not ‘living.’ So how safe is ‘safe enough?’ 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 Human Factors and Risk(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 757 No Such Thing as Safe appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Fitting into a Risk Program Abstract Greg and Fred discussing how risk assessment must be tailored to the context of the organization. Key Points Join Fred and Greg as they discuss how risk management is becoming essential knowledge, skills, and abilities for all quality and reliability professionals. Topics include: How risk assessment should be tailored to the context of the organization. Point of view in risk and reliability are all important. Changing behaviors means understanding and articulating benefits from the other person’s and even boss's point of view. How to double your salary by adding  risk management to your job title. 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 804 Risk and Supply Chain(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 756 Fitting into a Risk Program appeared first on Accendo Reliability.