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

Choosing Reliable Suppliers Abstract Chris and Fred discuss what you need to look for when choosing suppliers. The keyword here is the (human) suppliers … not the inanimate supplies! Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss what you need to do to get ‘reliable’ suppliers. We can always find suppliers that say that you will be their number one priority, their products are number one in the world, and … in short … everything will be number one. But sometimes when the contract is signed, the manufacturing facility gets moved to another country, no two parts are the same, and so on. Topics include: Standard responses. Many of us have had to deal with suppliers – when something goes wrong. And unfortunately, they are standard enough for them to be standard! … that issue was your fault (you are using the component outside of what you agreed) … … we have never seen that before (another way of saying that it is your fault) … … we solved that one last week and you should be fine moving forward … … (for electronic components) … that was caused by electrostatic discharge (ESD) Perhaps this is a ‘screen?’ Perhaps suppliers make these claims to try and see if you are serious enough. If you keep coming back … then they might put you through to someone who can perhaps do something. The problem with this is that many customers won’t fight too hard to resolve issues with suppliers. They will simply move on. But I am too small … suppliers won’t listen to me. Really? ‘Big’ customers will often have fleets of supply chain people negotiating every single cent they can out of the contract they sign with a supplier. Just enough to remain profitable … but not much else. Smaller customers tend to represent a market segment with much bigger margins for profit. So if you are a smaller customer, chances are your suppliers are making more money off you (at least per unit). And … smaller customers are often able to interact more directly with suppliers. That is … engineers are allowed to talk to other engineers. Sometimes suppliers won’t listen to smaller customers. But you might be surprised how often some are. Never send a defective component back to a supplier for investigation. OK … you can do this sometimes with suppliers who have a fantastic track record and are very proactive. But as a rule, this turns out to be a waste of time. The key? People. Prioritise the maturity of the people over the maturity of your product. Why? Nothing ever goes smoothly. You need suppliers who are flexible and willing to respond to (inevitable) issues. So prioritize the people. One last thing … always ask your suppliers how their product will fail. If they take reliability seriously, they will have an answer for this. If they are all about glossy brochures and the facade of magnificence … they will act like their product never fails. 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 715 Choosing Reliable Suppliers appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Achieving or Calculating Reliability Abstract Carl and Fred discuss which reliability methods add more value to a project or program: those methods that are centered around calculating reliability or those methods that predominently support achieving reliability. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the difference bwtween reliablity methods that calculate reliability and those that achieve reliablity. Topics include: Which reliability methods are centered mostly around calculating the value of reliability? Which methods are focused mostly on achieving reliability, without calculating its value? What happens if you focus only on reliability methods that calculate reliability? Let’s be clear: Knowing how to calculate reliability is important, but knowing how to achieve reliability is equally if not more important. What about HALT, FMEA, FTA? How does company culture affect the motivation to change? It takes understanding failure mechanisms coupled with knowing the program risk. The 6 steps to acheiving high reliability. There is more than one way to achieve reliability. When predicting reliability, assumptions are very important. 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 714 Achieving or Calculating Reliability appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Thoughts on ISO Standards Abstract Carl and Fred discuss ISO standards and how they impact quality and reliablity of products.  The discussion begins with the ISO 9000 series and proceeds to a discussion of standards in general. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the impact of ISO 9000 series and other ISO standards. Topics include: Quality is not achieved by becoming certified to ISO 9001. What happens when a company adheres to quality processes that are not best practice? Understanding and documenting your quality processes is only a beginning. The objective is to have the right processes that get you the outcome that you need, and to do them consistently. Based on an actual survey of companies that have pursued ISO 9001 certification, the primary reason is for marketing reasons, not to improve quality (see reference in Show Notes). Many ISO standards are written very well. However, adhering to standards is not enough by itself. The objective needs to be on achieving products that are safe and reliable. 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 reference for the survey of companies about ISO 9001 is from the International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, ISO 9000: marketing motivations and benefits, Francis Buttle, 1997, Vol. 14 Issue 9, pp. 936-947 The post SOR 713 Thoughts on ISO Standards appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Still Need to Know the Basics Abstract Chris and Fred discuss how in spite of all the wonderful new techniques and technologies that are becoming available … we still need to focus almost all our effort on the basics. Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss the ‘basics.’  We have so much information, so many courses, so many pieces of software, so much data (et cetera) … so why aren’t we using artificial intelligence to come up with ways to (for example) stop bolts from falling off? Topics include: Sophisticated tools can be ‘too sophisticated’ for us. Most software packages can spit out a number, or show a chart. So what? Does this help you make a decision? Do you know if there may be some issue with the underlying assumptions or data source? Do you inherently know when this applies to your application? Are you able to look at (for example) the shape of a Weibull plot and immediately see if this is wrong for your part or component? Sophisticated tools can’t help us with this. They can provide us with sophisticated outputs, but it starts with knowing the basics to be able to use those outputs. And this often means that you do courses that teaches you how to do the things that the software is doing ‘in’ the computer. It can be embarrassing to not know the basics. It often shouldn’t be … even reliability engineers who teach reliability engineering courses need to go to the textbook to find the right equation. The ‘basics’ are the ‘basics’ for a reason. There is a reason the term ‘foundation’ has been parlayed into everyday use. A ‘foundation’ is what a building or structure is built upon. It is the most important part of that building or structure. Every time you construct a new building or structure … you need a foundation. And foundations tend to not change. The bedrock that houses were built upon thousands of years ago is the same bedrock we build skyscrapers on today. Academics aren’t here to help … they are quite literally get paid to come up with stuff that hasn’t been come up with yet. Which is not the basics. And is often not helpful. 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 712 Still Need to Know the Basics appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Are You Confident in Your Confidence? Abstract Chris and Fred discuss what it means to be ‘confident.’ Is it the way you carry yourself? Is it being able to rely or trust on something? Or is it the probability that some variable quantity will be within two limits? More importantly … what does this mean in the domain of reliability and quality? Key Points Join Chris and Fred as they discuss what it means to be ‘confident’ … particularly in the world of reliability. We have ‘confidence limits,’ ‘confidence levels,’ ‘confidence intervals’ … and of course … bosses who are ‘overly confident’ that the product reliability that they have spent no time focusing on won’t cause catastrophic problems later on. So what does ‘confidence’ mean to you? Topics include: Reliability and quality engineers often go straight to a ‘statistical’ interpretation of ‘confidence.’ For example, a reliability requirement may look something like … … product X shall have a 90 % reliability at 2 years (warranty period) when used in accordance with use profile Y – WITH 99% CONFIDENCE … and this is where statistics comes into play. Failure is a random process. So this requirement is all about having some sort of test or analysis approach where we BELIEVE that based on the data presented to us, there is a 99 % probability that our product meet its reliability requirements. So this is one sort of confidence. The most useful form of confidence is one that is based on our PRODUCT, SYSTEM or SERVICE. For example, this could be based on FMEAs, HALT, or tailored approaches (such as where Netflix routinely trying to ‘break’ its systems in order to find weak points in the system) and then using this knowledge to focus ongoing reliability, software, and quality engineering efforts on those VITAL FEW elements of your system. This is the ‘ultimate’ form of confidence because it uses critical thinking in a way where we KNOW that every minute of effort is guaranteed to improve reliability. And there is always a finite amount of time we have … and that is the ‘limit’ to reliability improvement. Another form of confidence is based on PASSING A TEST – but it is not the best. Why? Because the focus ceases to be the VITAL FEW and the TRIVIAL THOUSANDS … or what the standard document says is important. So we stop trying to make failures ‘happen’ in order to learn. Failures become the opposite of progress … so they are wished away. This form of confidence is all about ‘convincing’ yourself that you have done enough … not achieved enough. Always focus on the decision. Are you confident that you are making the right decision? And making that decision EARLY usually awesome. Simple design characteristics that improve reliability are essentially free if they are part of your first design. They are free because we have the ultimate flexibility to make them simple. For example, if we work out that there is a thermally sensitive Printable Circuit Board (PCB) and that it should not be next to the exhaust manifold of a 20 cylinder diesel engine, our first blueprint can ensure that the PCB is a long way away from said exhaust manifold. And this is free. But … if we find out about this during our first production run … we might need to install insulation or some sort of additional cooling system that we have no room left for it in the engine bay. What would you rather do … have thousands of these free design characteristics incorporated early … or the couple of expensive remediations activities that we can afford to address the ‘big ticket’ items only … later? Leaders who have relevant corporate knowledge are the key. Think of a military project to introduce a new tank into service. If the project leader is a tank officer who is very competent with lots of experience in driving tanks in the battlefield (not engineering) … then they have to rely on ‘bad’ types of confidence. This means passing tests or use standards or otherwise outsourcing critical thought to inanimate artefacts because the leader doesn’t have the skillset to do this him or herself. So are you confident that you know what ‘confidence’ means? 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 711 Are You Confident in Your Confidence? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

HALT and Safety Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing the relationship between reliability, the fundamental limits of technology, and safety. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss possible risks to human life and how the highest priority in reliability is any failure that leads to safety risks. Topics include: Making a product more robust helps improve reliability for variation in new customer use conditions that may not have been anticipated during the design stage. HALT can lead to discovery of safety issues, but should not be relied on to find all. The reliability of the gasoline pump automatic shutoff is a representative of a product that could be a severe safety problem if it fails, but  has been for reliable design for decades. 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. The post SOR 710 HALT and Safety appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

A Great Customer Experience Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing Kirk’s experience with a new pinball machine’s component failures and the manufacturer. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss recent failures of a new pinball machine and the rapid response of the manufacturer to respond and send replacement parts. Topics include: Details on a  the first failure leading to the discovery of a second failure Posting to social media to help identify a broken part got the machine designer to respond quickly and made direct contact with Kirk. The part that failed is a design that has been produced for thousands of machines over decades and has been generally reliable, and this may be a failure as a result of manufacturing error. 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. The post SOR 709 A Great Customer Experience appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

How Well to Know Failure Mechanisms Abstract Carl and Fred discussing the underlying mechanisms of failure, and how they impact our analysis and understanding of reliability. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the broad subject of failure mechanisms. Many of the tools of reliability, such as FMEA, RCA, design guidelines, test design, interpreting field failures, require understanding mechanisms of failure. Topics include: What are mechanisms of failure? Which reliablity methods depend on knowlege of underlying failure mechanisms for their application? Who needs to know about mechanisms of failure? How deeply do you need to know mechanisms of failure? DfR requires an understanding of failure mechanisms well enough to know how to influence the reliablity of the design. Reliability engineers need to talk the langauge of how things fail, so they can guide the design team to achieve reliability. Reliability statistics vs design for reliability. Every failure contains clues of the mechanism, and this is “gold”! Reliability can be a catalyst to the organization to have conversations about failure. If you understand how things fail, you can design them to be robust. Think: “what precipates failure?” Don’t forget the human side. How could the mechanism of failure have been avoided? Work towards a culture that allows and encourages open to critique by others. General knowledge of all types of failure mechnisms is good. Specialized knowledge of selected failure mechinsims is also good. 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 Show Notes   The post SOR 708 How Well to Know Failure Mechanisms appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Is There a Better Way than RPN? Abstract Carl and Fred take on the subject of Risk Priority Number, also called RPN, when used in FMEA. Is RPN a good way to prioritize risk in an FMEA, or is there a better way? Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss different ways to use severity, occurrence and detection in FMEA applications. Topics include: Explanation of RPN calculation Limitations of RPN MIL-STD-1629A (see Show Notes below for correction) Different approaches to FMEA risk prioritization SxO versus SxOxD RPN has less support in recent standards Primary issue with RPN, if it is used High-severity, low RPN can be high risk RPN thresholds can create a “numbers game” Reducing severity risk, using fail safe or fault tolerance Use of Action Priority Table rather than RPN Importance of the FMEA right team 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 Correction: In this podcast, at about one minute and 30 seconds into the recording, I mistakenly say that MIL-STD-1629A was cancelled in 1980. I should have said the 1980 version of MIL-STD-1629A was cancelled in 1998. Attached here is the official “Notice of Cancellation” for MIL-STD-1629A. Although MIL-STD-1629A is cancelled, it is still being used in selected applications. The post SOR 707 Is There a Better Way than RPN? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

What Reliability is Good Enough Abstract Kirk and Fred discussing the expectations of reliability of their own vehicles  and some of the wear out mechanisms we expect. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss the expectations of reliability in new products. Topics include: How reliable does a product have to be? Li-ion Battery technology is still limited and eventually will fail after some finite number of cycles and typically long before the system is technologically obsolete, therefore most of the time it is made to be replaceable by the device manufacturer Maintenance of new electric vehicles may be less than traditional gas powered vehicles but now the reliability of the electronics and battery is much more an issue. How reliable do delivery drones need to be? 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. The post SOR 706 What Reliability is Good Enough appeared first on Accendo Reliability.