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

Reliability Program vs Reality Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing failures in products after launch and the importance of  and knowing how the customers use conditions. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss finding failures in the lab and the some of their experiences with finding design errors during testing. Topics include: Finding a battery wire connection rubbing through a solder mask layer to cause a short. Find the weaknesses with HALT, and then decide whether those weaknesses are a field reliability risk. All technology has its limits, and a sports camera designed for rugged use still cannot go deep into an active Volcano, but we can and have designed space systems that now withstand millions of degrees pass close to our Sun. Know how your customer is using or will use your product and test to stimulate failures using those stresses or combination of stresses. Also use all the stresses that stimulate the precipitation of potential failures even if the product is only subjected to during shipping. Solder joint fatigue and loose connector hardware are stimulated by vibration, and by thermal cycling, combining them highly accelerates their discovery. HASS is very beneficial during the pilot manufacturing run to find assembly 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 QDD 011 The Designer's Important Influence on Monitoring After Launch(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 745 Reliability Program vs Reality appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Reliability Growth Abstract Chris and Fred discuss what ‘reliability growth’ means? Sounds simple … right? And it can be. But sometimes not. Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss what reliability growth is. And isn’t. Topics include: What is ‘reliability growth?’ It is usually associated with a ‘build-test-fix’ or ‘test-analyze-and-fix (TAAF)’ approach to design where a prototype is built, tested, and all the issues you find are corrected. But reliability growth can technically refer to any activity that makes reliability better. In practice, reliability growth tends to refer to testing prototypes. Then there is ‘military-centric’ reliability growth. This involves ‘build-test-fix’ or TAAF when prototypes are tested in ‘operational’ conditions and models are imposed on the test paradigm to be able to track how reliability improves. This has the benefit of being able to quantify reliability … but takes a long time. In this context, there is no scope for increasing stresses to find issues more quickly. And perhaps the worst characteristic of this type of testing is that we need to have a ‘mature’ or ‘production ready’ prototype to test. Which means we only start ‘growing’ reliability at the end of a production process. But reliability growth models actually model your DESIGN TEAM. Not the device. Because the rate at which reliability grows is a measure of your team’s ability to design out design flaws. So if your system has a couple of failure mechanisms that have a high failure rate … great! But if your system has lots of failure mechanisms with low failure rates … not so great … So we need to essentially assume a lot of things (including how good your team is) to model reliability growth. … so the result is assumed from the start. Which is a problem. BUT … if you have data that shows how much reliability has already grown, then we can do something. Reliability growth models are quite powerful – you just need some inputs. So if your team has already started, then you can look at how much reliability has grown and how it will likely continue to grow. This helps you work out how much time or resources you need to keep designing those defects out of the system. This works particularly well with software systems. But not necessarily military vehicles. 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 050 Implementing System Reliability Growth(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 744 Reliability Growth appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

System Engineering and Reliability Abstract Chris and Fred discuss what are often seen as competing/different/complementary/friendly/unfriendly disciplines … systems and reliability engineering. How does one relate to the other? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss systems and reliability engineering, and how they do or do not relate with each other. In fact, one systems engineer once said to Fred that ‘systems engineering’ invented ‘reliability engineering.’ It didn’t … reliability engineering has existed for thousands of years before it was called reliability engineering. So how do they relate to each other? Topics include: Each engineering discipline can really help each other. OR be a hindrance. There are organizations where systems, reliability and perhaps quality engineers work really well together. But there are also organizations where systems engineers focus on the ‘process’ of making the perfect system, reliability engineers focus on ‘data analysis’ and not making better decisions, and quality engineers focus on ‘checklists’ and not improving anything. So no discipline is ‘bad.’ The engineers make or break this approach. What is wrong with ‘systems engineering?’ Nothing. It comes down to implementation. For example, there is a systems engineering ‘V’ model which essentially describes how you start with ‘high-level’ specifications that are incrementally allocated to ‘sub-systems’ and ‘components’ … which are then designed and incrementally tested ‘back up’ as they are integrated into the subsystems and then systems. The underlying message in this model is the importance of hierarchy. But in practice, designing a complex system needs ongoing iteration and review. If one component can’t do what we initially envisaged it could … what can another component do to compensate. The ‘V’ model … when implemented ‘dogmatically’ … doesn’t allow this. Good systems engineers know this. Bad systems engineers worship the ‘V’ diagram. Experience is key. Many systems engineers get a ‘post-graduate degree’ in systems engineering after having no engineering, design or manufacturing experience. So this means that their only skills are in implementing a process. But wonderful systems are based on prioritizing design, creativity and novel new ways of manufacturing. Reliability engineering (along with design, manufacture et cetera) share the same ‘status’ when it comes to systems engineering. You cannot systems engineer your way to a magnificent system. But systems engineering can be really good at coordinating different disciplines in a harmonious way. A systems engineer is not the pre-eminent expert on manufacturing high strength alloys, or designs that mitigate dendritic growth in integrated circuits, or really advanced human-machine interfaces. Many systems engineers see reliability engineers as only relevant when it comes to testing, verification and validation. But by this time … it is too late! The system’s reliability is what it is by this stage. We need to IMPROVE reliability. And using the MTBF is not an OK simplification that systems engineers can use because they deal with high-level perspectives. There is plenty of material on Accendo about this … 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 284 A Systems Engineering Approach to Reliability with Andrew Kelleher(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 743 System Engineering and Reliability appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Reliability and Quality Abstract Dianna and Fred discussing differences and similarities between quality and reliability. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss the differences and similarities between quality and reliability functions in an organization. Topics include: different views organizations have about quality and reliability functions quality and reliability practitioners’ involvement in problem analysis different perspectives that quality and reliability folks can provide to teams throughout a development process 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 and Fred discuss roles of quality and reliability functions in an organization: how they relate to the organization, how they relate to each other, and the values they bring. If you work in quality or reliability groups, what are your solutions to get involved early in a team to prevent problems (instead of only reacting to problems)? Related Topics SOR 849 Two Sides of a Coin: Quality and Reliability(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 742 Reliability and Quality appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

What is Working in Quality Abstract Dianna and Fred discussing the role of Quality and quality professionals in an organization. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss Quality in organizations. Topics include: organizational structure of Quality the Hollywood stereotypes of the quality profession compared to the real world Quality’s role as an independent Voice of the Customer 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 and Fred discuss the role of Quality in organizations, including the need to be implemented well and to be able to communicate broader ideas to many functions across the organization. What’s the role of Quality in your 0rganization? Related Topics PSM 15th Element: Quality(Opens article in a new browser tab) The post SOR 741 What is Working in Quality appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Building Rapport and Influence Abstract Carl and Fred discussing how to build rapport with colleagues, as one of the steps in shaping and influencing product designs and manufacturing processes. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss techniques in building rapport with people. Many of the tools of reliability engineering require the ability to influence product teams; and making a healthy and professional connection with colleagues is crucial. Topics include: Building rapport with management Building rapport with peers You cannot design-for-reliability by yourself You have to connect with people before you can influence them Creating value and results is necessary, but not sufficient; you have to also communicate with and influence others Building rapport leads to building trust, which allows you to have influence Be aware of cultural differences with people from different countries How people interact, how they relate to each other, is all part of culture Practice making a connection with people until it becomes natural Getting to know another person’s point of view is a great way to build rapport Avoid certain mistakes when building rapport, what you can do and what you shouldn’t do User “role playing” to practice building rapport Be genuinely interested in other people, listen to them Difference between one-on-one and groups Use humor carefully, and only if you know the person or the group very well Learn about the group you will be addressing, before speaking 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 Related Topics How to Build Your Influence as a Reliability Engineer(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 740 Building Rapport and Influence appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Maintenance v Product Reliability Engineering Abstract Carl and Fred discussing a listener question about the crossover knowledge between asset reliability and product reliability. What are the similarities? What are the differences? What about a potential career change between one and the other? Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the body of knowledge in product reliability and how much of it is similar to the body of knowledge in asset reliability. Topics include: Can an asset reliability engineer apply for a product reliability engineer position? Can a product reliability engineer apply for an asset reliability engineer position? What is Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) and how is it different from product reliability? Discussion of similarities Discussion of differences Maintenance FMEA vs Design FMEA Level of detail in FMEA is different between Maintenance FMEA and Design FMEA If you want to move from a career in product reliability to maintenance reliability, you need to learn the concepts of supportability and RCM. If you want to move from a career in asset reliability to product reliability, you need to learn the concepts of product design and product development. Accendo Reliability has lot of resources to learn RCM and asset reliability, as well as product reliability Learn what are the priorities in each field Maintenance people can get involved in product design: design for maintainability Types of decisions are different If you are job hunting, adjust your resume and career plan to focus on your career 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 394 Reliability Engineering versus Management(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 739 Maintenance v Product Reliability Engineering appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Design Use of Cpk Abstract Chris and Fred discuss the use of this thing called ‘Cpk’ which is what we call a ‘capability index.’ This is a measure of how ‘capable’ a typically manufacturing process is, which helps us understand the percentage of defects we create. But reliability engineers often see this as something that ‘manufacturing teams’ or ‘quality people’ do. But is it? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss how Cpk relates to ‘reliability people.’ This follows previous podcasts on what Cpk is and a webinar on this thing called Statistical Process Control (SPC). It is often associated with how many defects manufacturing processes create. And so many reliability engineers see things like Cpk as nothing to do with them. But is it? Topics include: Designers specify tolerances. Which is what Cpk is based on. So designers specify how we define Cpk, or how we characterize how many products are outside of specifications. Many designers don’t think about tolerances. They include arbitrary ‘plus minus’ percentages that don’t mean a lot. Being ‘built-to-spec’ doesn’t guarantee your product won’t fail when it shouldn’t. There are thousands of examples of things failing even though every single part and component was ‘in specification.’ Why is that? Because you can’t say that a part that is ‘just’ within specification is just as good as another that is close to the nominal design value. The closer you are to the ‘boundaries of acceptability’ the more you increase the risk of failure. And if every part of your system is manufactured so that they are ‘on the boundaries of acceptability,’ then your system is in deep trouble. You need to constantly improve your manufacturing … to maintain reliability. And reliability engineers often don’t want to hear this. Because manufacturing realities need to be included in design. Good design teams will understand the unavoidable variation that will occur when their product is manufactured, and make sure that their design is able to tolerate this UNAVOIDABLE variation. 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 737 Proper Use of Cpk(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 738 Design Use of Cpk appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Proper Use of Cpk Abstract Chris and Fred discuss what ‘Cpk’ and other ‘capability indices’ mean … especially when it comes to reliability. Never heard of this or want to learn more? Listen to this podcast! Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss one of the best-known Capability Indices called ‘Cpk.’ It is a metric used in manufacturing a lot. But it is often seen as a ‘quality’ thing and not a ‘reliability’ thing. But in practice, you can’t talk about one without talking about the other. If a product fails because of a design flaw versus a manufacturing flaw … does your customer care? Topics include: What is ‘Statistical Process Control (SPC)?’ SPC is all about keeping processes in control.  Imagine being a passenger in a taxi where the steering wheel is damaged to the extent that the driver has to work very hard, turning the steering wheel left and right just to go straight. Even if your taxi is (somehow) staying on the road … would you say that the taxi is in-control? Ideally if we detect play in the steering wheel of our car, or a loose pedal, or a weird noise coming from the engine … we take our car to the garage to get repaired. This is what SPC is all about. It is sometimes hard to detect when a manufacturing process is starting to do something unexpected, so SPC focuses on some statistics and metrics that if we measure and organize in a specific way, help us give us much EARLY WARNING as possible that something is about to go wrong – even if everything is in specification now. Let’s talk about ‘workarounds.’ Workarounds are a necessary part of life. But they can be used so often that they guarantee long term failure. We often use workarounds when we let something degrade to a crisis. This means that there might be an issue that stops production entirely, so there is pressure from management to fix the crisis quickly. Workarounds are quick and (ideally) shortterm. They are also the only solution you have if you have allowed your process to degrade to a point that fixing it now costs millions of dollars. But if we had fixed it when we first received early warning, it would have cost hundreds of dollars. Think about the taxi … is it cheaper to fix the steering pinion when we detect some play, or panel beat the vehicle back together after it has wrapped around a tree because the driver couldn’t control it anymore? What is ‘Cpk’ anyway? Cpk is a ‘capability index’ which is a measure of the extent to which the natural variation of your process lies within specification. The premise is that Cpk is based on an in-control process (if the process is out of control, then it will be changing unexpectedly all the time). A higher Cpk implies there is less variation outside of specifications. So it is a really good way of defining the quality of a process. What ‘Cpk’ should I be aiming for in my process #1? Depends who you ask! Some say that we should be aiming for Cpk goals of 2.0, or sometimes 1.33 if it is an existing process, or 1.5 if it an established process, and plenty of others. The problem is that any of these could still mean that you don’t meet your quality and reliability goals. For some organizations, 1.33 is enough. For others, 2.0 is not. What ‘Cpk’ should I be aiming for in my process #2? You need to find your quality goals and then allocate these goals down to your individual processes. So there is a bit more to it! And this includes working out which processes you want to focus on. And get your specifications right. Including tolerances. Your manufacturing engineers will thank you! 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 738 Design Use of Cpk(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 737 Proper Use of Cpk appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Modern Phone Qualification Abstract Dianna and Fred discussing the information needed to determine how to qualify product reliability. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss a listener’s question: Do you have materials that describe different reliability tests done to qualify modern smartphones? Topics include: There is no reliability tests checklist for a product. Rather, we need to start with understanding what we need to know, using analyses. Then we can prioritize decisions based on risk. The three basic elements of qualifying devices to consider. Using information that’s already available to figure out what we need to know. We can prioritize based on analysis. FMEA is a common tool to help with what can fail and how. This can help produce meaningful action against the design or its manufacturing processes. 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 is no reliability tests checklist for a product. Rather, we need to start with understanding what we need to know, using analyses. Then we can prioritize decisions based on risk. The three basic elements of qualifying devices to consider: regulatory, environmental conditions, and performance/functional information. While regulatory standards are typically a few years behind the state-of-the art, they could be a starting point. Reliability tests houses are a resource of current test capabilities but are not specific to a design. Environmental conditions are important to understand: where in the world it is used (leading to temperature, humidity, and other climate environments), how the device is being used, and changes in interfacing equipment. Performance/functional information is what we say the device is going to do. Mobile devices are not new, so there’s a wealth of information that is available about how current designs are performing. We can use our current knowledge to investigate what we need to know. How is it performing right now against its current requirements? Compared to the current design, what components are new in this latest design? This is typically a red flag for investigating. Are there new or different environments for how it’s used, where it’s used, and what interfaces with it? We can prioritize based on analysis. FMEA is a common tool to help with what can fail and how. This can help produce meaningful action against the design or its manufacturing processes. Applications discussed: modular phones, medical devices, autonomous vehicles, and software Related Topics SOR 823 Stresses and Mechanism(Opens podcast in a new browser tab) The post SOR 736 Modern Phone Qualification appeared first on Accendo Reliability.