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

Risk Assessments Abstract Greg and Fred discussing how and why to conduct risk assessments. Key Points Join Fred and Greg as they discuss risk assessments. ISO defines a risk assessment as: 1. Risk identification; 2. Risk analysis and 3. Risk evaluation. Risk assessments must be tailored to the context and organization level. Focus the risk assessment.  Don’t boil the ocean. Follow process such as Architect, Design, Deploy and Assure (ADDA) to develop appropriate risk – controls. ADDA is the risk equivalent to quality PDCA cycle. 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 755 Risk Assessments appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

What Software Are You Using? Abstract Dianna and Fred discussing software tools used by reliability engineers: the good, the bad, and pitfalls. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss software tools used by reliability engineers. Topics include: Different suites of software that they’ve used in the past and what they’re using today. Assumptions that need to be checked when using any software. When and how we can validate the results that we’re getting with any software solution, including a reality check! The types of support options available with different software solutions. How to think about any particular software as a tool: when to use it and when not to. Let us know in the comments: What software are you using? 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 Dianna asks Fred what software he’s using now, which opens up a discussion about lots of options, from graphing calculators, open-source software, and software with licenses. They talk about how to responsibly use software, including checking for assumptions and calculation methods and ensuring the results are rooted in reality. Let them know what software you’re using. Share with the group in the comments at reliability.fm. Related Topics SOR 665 Keeping up with Reliability Tools (Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 754 What Software Are You Using? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Catching Up with Questions Abstract Carl and Fred summarizing and discussing the latest questions received from readers and listeners. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss questions relating to FMEA detection, FMEA scope, and other questions. Topics include: FMEA detection methods and ratings Two types of Detection: detection during product development and detection in-service Design FMEA supplement called “monitoring and system response” (MSR) SAE J1739:2021 includes MSR supplement Which is best approach: one large FMEA on everything or selective use of FMEA on highest risk areas? (Answer: selective use of FMEA) Better to do fewer FMEAs, done very well, than lots of FMEAs, done poorly Start with System FMEA and narrow down Use of Preliminary Risk Assessment to select FMEA projects Be careful of FMEA softwar3e that encourages gigantic FMEAs Use of models with FMEAs Team-based vs automated FMEAs Value of team involvement to mitigate blind spots Reducing time in FMEAs 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 Welcome to “Inside FMEA”(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 753 Catching Up with Questions appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Bringing Back Old Plant Equipment Abstract Carl and Fred discussing a listener question about the use of FMEA when ramping up equipment in a plant. In this case, the equipment had been sitting dormant for a number of years. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss which specific methods would be most useful in a production scenario with older equipment when the history is not known. Topics include: The type of FMEA that supports this scenario Prioritizing manufacturing or assembly processes People who have experience with older equipment Reliability Centered Maintenance and Supportability, using Maintenance FMEA When to replace vs repair equipment Use of key product characteristics as input to Process FMEA Use of Process Control plan Use of Root Cause Analysis Use of Preventive Maintenance Plan Use of prevention methods when faced with production problems When to stop production vs running fixes Reducing waste and meeting quality objectives 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 178 Providing Solutions as a Reliability Engineer(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 752 Bringing Back Old Plant Equipment appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

The Best Reliability Training Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing their views on how to best learn the discipline of reliability engineering. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss the ways to learn about reliability and improving Topics include: The best way to learn reliability engineering is to understand why products fail in the field. The Boeing 737 Max MCAS control system had a major overlooked flaw in the design in that the system depended on a signal angle of attack sensor which became a single point of failure for two airline crashes. Isolating a failed component and sending it back to the vendor probably will not bring an understanding of how it became a cause of system failure. David Packard said it best back in 1972 and it is still true with his statement “Reliability cannot be acheived by adhering to specifications. Reliability cannot be achieved by formula or analysis. Some of the may help to some extent, but the is only one road to reliability. Build it, test it and fix the things that go wrong. Repeat the process until the desired reliability is achieved. It is a feedback process and there is no other way“ 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 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 MC 009 Learning and Professional Development(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 751 The Best Reliability Training appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Decisions and Safety Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing whether to ship a product that may or may not be safe and reliable. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss recent medical equipment failures and the potential risks and whose responsibility it is. Topics include: Risks of component failures, such as MLCC (Mult-layer Ceramic Capacitors ) is an example of how the application of the component makes the failure critical or not. Failures of  MLCCs used for  de-coupling may not affect function, but other applications can lead to system failures. If there is a failure and a known fix on a questionable risk of failure, its always best to er on the side of fixing something that could be a safety issue. Fred discusses the ease of finding the cause of a contamination issue without entering a PWA factory. Many times the bias of engineering and management on the safety and reliability of a product and pass off on failures that may or may not be significant field issues. 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 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 830 Dealing With Product Characteristics (Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 750 Decisions and Safety appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Hierarchy of Engineering Abstract Chris and Fred discuss the ‘hierarchy’ of reliability engineering. Which is the hierarchy of the knowledge and terms we need to follow when we learn about reliability engineering. Is it possible to organize our thoughts in a better way? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss the ‘hierarchy’ of (reliability) engineering. Topics include: We often follow the novice-dangerous-curious-useful continuum. We all know what the novice stage of anything is. We then learn a little bit and think we can solve any problem. This is where we are dangerous. After a few (potentially humiliating) failures, we often become curious because we realize we need to learn more. And then finally … we become useful. Do we start with the decision we are trying to inform? You usually can’t go wrong with this. And don’t forget about communication. It doesn’t matter how good an engineer you are – if you can’t convey your information – it doesn’t matter. A lot of it comes down to a really simple, defining concept of who your organization is. Let’s call it an identity. Or vision. Steve Jobs had many personal failings … but was clearly an effective leader. He clearly defined Apple’s identity in terms of focus on customer experience. There are many people who lead effective organizations who don’t fit the textbook definitions of leadership. And perhaps it comes down to identity … but it applies to us reliability engineers. What is YOUR identity? Are you here to do data analysis? … that is not an identity. Are you here to prevent root causes of failure from ever appearing in your preliminary designs? … this could be your identity. And you might need to start by not knowing where to start. You may need to complete seemingly random courses without much rhyme or reason as a junior engineer. Then you might realize that you don’t like reliability engineering! Which is OK. There is no point in trying to become a master at something you don’t enjoy. It comes down to your personal vision or identity. 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 399 Paths to Learning Reliability (Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 749 Hierarchy of Engineering appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Accuracy and Intervals Abstract Chris and Fred discuss the terms ‘accuracy’ and ‘intervals’ … which are used a lot by reliability engineers. And how they relate to ‘confidence.’ So what to do any of these terms mean? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss how terms like ‘accuracy’ and ‘intervals’ … and how they are used in reliability engineering to help us measure the uncertainty we have in some concept. This came from a question we were asked … … is it more accurate to use a 99 % confidence interval or a 90 % confidence interval? This is a difficult question to answer! But lets try: What is ‘accuracy?’ This is a term that we have all used since we were young children. This is great! And perhaps not so great at the same time. When it comes to statistics, many of the terms we have used for much of our life actually means something subtly different when it comes to statistics. But let’s stick with ‘accuracy’ representing how ‘close’ some value is to a ‘true’ or ‘perfect’ value. So what is a ‘confidence interval?’ A confidence interval represents a region where we are reasonably confident that some value lies. For example, we might be able to say that we are 90 % confident that a randomly selected human’s height is between 5′ 4″ and 6′ 5″. We might also be able to say that we are 99 % confident that a randomly selected human’s height is between 5′ 0″ and 6′ 8″. Both these confidence intervals are ‘true.’ But neither one is more ‘accurate’ than the other. Confidence intervals help represent our confidence on some measurable quantity. Not the measurable quantity itself. But we often focus on parameters and not the data. Let’s say that instead of focusing on the actual heights of human beings, but want to study the average human heights. As we get more and more data, we can become increasingly confident about what we think the true average is. We can never find that value … unless we measure every single person in the world. So our 90 and 99 % confidence intervals we have on our understanding of the human heights will get smaller and smaller. Which is good. And bringing it back to accuracy? Accuracy is different to confidence. In some ways. Confidence is a state of mind. As we become more and more confident, the accuracy in our estimates and predictions based on that confidence becomes more accurate. Does this help? 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 711 Are You Confident in Your Confidence?(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 748 Accuracy and Intervals appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Celebrating Reliability Success Abstract Carl and Fred discussing a listener question about when it is OK to celebrate reliability successes. Specifically, how long you have to wait to feel comfortable you have a successful product when nothing bad happens. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the criteria for successful field programs, including what success looks like. Topics include: Deming’s advice to celebrate doing things right the first time, rather than only celebrating fixing fires Launch success vs long-term field success If you wait for years to see if the product has failures, there are better ways Program milestones can help; successes can be defined at each milestone Need success criteria for different time milestones When is it known that FMEA is done well? Use of quality objectives to assess quality of method (such as FMEA) Set realistic goals and don’t fool yourself by running evaluations that get the right number What if you test the product and you have no failures, does that mean the product is good? Meeting standards vs ensuring product is safe and reliable Testing must represent field usage What is cost of failure? How likely is a problem to occur in field? What is avoided cost? Life-cycle budgeting Tests must include relevant failure mechanisms Emphasize test-to-failure where possible Celebration must be very specific, and should be across the engineering platform (share the joy) Get the culture of the organization to recognize the right actions 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 482 Celebrate Failure(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 747 Celebrating Reliability Success appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Do You Need a Degree in Reliability Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing higher education and the importance of a college degree in reliability for a career in reliability engineering. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss their road to having a career in reliability engineering. Topics include: There are excellent engineers that are self taught, and many leaders in technology never finished college. Soft skills such as good communication skills are also important. There are many schools that offer Bachelor, Masters, and Doctorate degrees in reliability engineering. MLCC (Multi-layered Ceramic Capacitors ) has been extensively by CALCE yet Kirk gives an example of a issue with a lot of defective Varactors (Diodes) that is an assignable cause that would not likely be studied. Getting practical experience in a technology industry before going into formal institutions is very beneficial to understanding the relevance of the subjects studied on the path to a degree. 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 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 382 Do Certifications or Degrees Help a Reliability Engineer?(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 746 Do You Need a Degree in Reliability appeared first on Accendo Reliability.