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

Building a Reliability Team Abstract Dianna and Fred discuss building a reliability team. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss building a reliability team. Topics include: the difference between being a manager and building/leading a team. why a reliability program should not rely on one person. the importance of business risk and how to quantify it with input from a team. how ad hoc teams can solve problems and create opportunities for continuous improvement. Plus, find out how a reliability engineer saved a company millions of dollars by building a team to solve a problem. 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 and Dianna discuss the differences between being a manager and building a team, noting that simply managing a department is very different from creating a team to solve a specific problem. They emphasize that a reliability program should not be built around one person, as that program will disappear when that person leaves the organization. Building a team requires influence, explaining the benefits, and getting people to understand what’s in it for them. A key element of a team is understanding business risk. The team can assist with putting a dollar amount on the risk to get a project going. Ad hoc teams can be useful to solve problems, like a customer complaint, or for continuous improvement. The team should include people from different parts of the organization. In one case, a reliability engineer built a team that saved a company millions of dollars by identifying bottlenecks in the prototype process. There can be reliability lessons in business systems and processes as well. The post SOR 1046 Building a Reliability Team appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Complex AI Reliability Abstract Dianna and Fred discuss complex AI reliability. Key Points Join Dianna and Fred as they discuss complex AI reliability: using AI for complex systems. Topics include: the pitfalls of trusting AI without proper validation and monitoring. how small errors in AI decision-making can compound and lead to unreliable outcomes. why good data and established practices are essential before implementing AI in maintenance and planning. day trading, comedies, and quality scorecards 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 In this episode of Speaking of Reliability, Fred and Dianna discuss complex AI reliability, in using AI for complex systems. They share their experiences with AI, noting that while it can be a helpful start, it’s not always a finished product. They also talk about a use study of using AI for stock trading. The goal was to use AI as an agent for decision making. It’s an example of compounding probabilities, with risk and uncertainty in those decisions. The discussion highlights the risk of relying on AI without proper validation, as small errors in AI decision-making can compound and lead to unreliable outcomes. They emphasize that AI is only as good as the data it’s trained on, and that good data and established practices are essential before implementing AI. They conclude that AI is a tool that needs to be evaluated and monitored. The post SOR 1045 Complex AI Reliability appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Reliability Engineer or No Abstract Enrico and Fred discuss about the role of the reliability engineer in modern organizations. Key Points Join Fred and Enrico in an engaging conversation about the evolving role of the reliability engineer in organizations and the broader question: Should reliability engineering be a dedicated function, or should it be integrated across teams? This episode covers: Centralized vs. Distributed Reliability Expertise Discussing the pros and cons of having a dedicated reliability engineer versus embedding reliability knowledge across teams. Insights into how organizations with a strong reliability culture achieve product excellence, even without dedicated reliability roles. The Importance of Collaboration and Culture Why embedding reliability into simultaneous engineering teams fosters better outcomes than working in silos. Examples of how a reliability mindset can be effectively distributed across functions like design, marketing, and manufacturing. Teaching and Coaching: The True Role of a Reliability Engineer Transitioning from running tests to empowering teams with reliability knowledge. How training and mentorship help build a culture of reliability excellence within organizations. Challenges in Creating a Reliability Mindset Overcoming outdated practices and checklist-based reliability programs. Strategies for moving beyond test-focused approaches to prevent issues before they arise. Success Stories and Lessons Learned Anecdotes from organizations that shifted their approach to reliability. Exploring how training, collaboration, and management buy-in lead to lasting improvements. This episode offers practical advice for reliability professionals and decision-makers striving to elevate their organization's approach to reliability engineering. Whether you’re a seasoned engineer or new to the field, you’ll find valuable perspectives to enhance your impact. Download Audio RSS Show Notes   The post SOR 1044 Reliability Engineer or No appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Value of Failures Abstract Kirk and Fred discuss how many companies discard or never get back failed parts or subsystems even though they are high-value gold in the quest to make a more reliable product. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss why so few companies realize the value of field failure returns, testing to limits, and the distribution of stress limits in testing several samples of a new product during development. Topics include: Semantics and the terms reliability engineers use are critical in selling a new reliability evaluation process. For instance, the term destruct limit used in HALT (Highly Accelerated LIMIT tests) may sound to non-engineers as if you were going to smash it to pieces and then analyze the pieces. Many companies test-to-pass and then scrap the used samples when a better use would be to take those samples and find and compare the operational and sometimes destruct limits, what Kirk has termed comparative limits analysis, The potential costs of a weak link during product development testing will be exponentially more expensive to a manufacturer when it fails in the field, so it is a good bet that companies should err on the side of making it more robust. 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”. It is in the public domain, so please distribute freely. Attempting to predict reliability  is a misleading and costly approach to use for developing a reliable system. 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. 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 1043 Value of Failures appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Reliability Tradeoffs Abstract Kirk and Fred discuss the tradeoffs involved in developing a reliable product. Key Points Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss how, during product development, we have to limit the amount of robustness we can achieve so that it is on schedule and cost-competitive. Topics include: HALT is to find weaknesses in new products using standard materials and processes for most common electronics up to the technology’s fundamental limit. Some products, such as oil exploration tools as Measurement While Drilling (MWD) electronics and interplanetary robots, have unique extreme conditions that are the exceptions. Experience conducting and analyzing HALT processes results in understanding the capabilities of electronic material’s stress limits and their relevance to past failures. HALT is not just breaking and fixing products during development. Engineers should use multiple samples for any HALT process to confirm a low limit. Reliability engineers must justify every limit cause and proposed improvement by tying the potential reliability risk of not improving to known field failure 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.” It is in the public domain, so please distribute freely. Attempting to predict reliability is a misleading and costly approach to ecording 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. 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 1042 Reliability Tradeoffs appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

In this engaging discussion, Enrico Belmonte, a reliability engineer, delves into the crucial question of product lifespan. He highlights the balance between consumer satisfaction and cost implications while exploring how different usage patterns impact design decisions. Enrico also emphasizes the importance of understanding consumer behavior to enhance product reliability and safety, particularly for high-stakes applications. The episode thoughtfully examines how marketing and engineering can collaborate to redefine reliability targets in an ever-evolving marketplace.

Getting it Right Abstract Philip and Fred discuss the value of precision maintenance. Key Points Join Philip and Fred as they discuss the need to purchase, install, and maintain equipment with precision. Topics include: A mindset to get it right and enjoy the benefits Alignment as an example Rotating equipment benefits significantly with ‘getting it right’ attention to detail. 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 1040 Getting it Right appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Competing Risk or Not Abstract Philip and Fred discuss the considerations when the dataset does not have competing risks. Key Points Join Philip and Fred as they discuss the difference in data analysis and results when the dataset does or does not have competing risks of failure. Topics include: What are competing risks? The extreme value family of distributions. Does your software just assume competing risks? 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 1039 Competing Risk or Not appeared first on Accendo Reliability.

Carl and Fred dive into the fascinating intersection of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and artificial intelligence. They discuss the pros and cons of automating FMEA compared to collaborative approaches. Historical data usage shines, especially with component failures like capacitors. The conversation highlights the importance of human insight in the FMEA process to avoid blind spots and foster creativity. They caution against superficial automation and emphasize that true reliability requires active team engagement and thoughtful analysis.

NUDD Abstract Carl and Fred discuss an interesting question from an Accendo listener. The question has to do with what is called NUDD: New, Unique, Difficult, Different. Specifically the listener’s management wanted to know if their NUDD process could replace FMEA. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they deep dive into NUDD and FMEA. They examine both methods to see how they relate to each other. Topics include: What is NUDD, and how does it work? What is the relationship between NUDD and FMEA? Can NUDD replace FMEA, and if not, why not? NUDD helps to identify higher risk issues, and can track follow up. FMEA is a deeper analysis that gets to root cause, risk analysis to prioritize issues, and recommendations to reduce risk. NUDD and FMEA can work together. NUDD does not replace FMEA. NUDD can be front end to FMEA to help identify focus areas. Don’t forget interfaces; more than half problems occur at interfaces. Discussion about following standards versus analytical thinking Reliability is a way of thinking, not merely a set of topics and methods. FMEA is not a “fill out the form” exercise. Don’t forget field history, as input to selecting projects. 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 1037 NUDD appeared first on Accendo Reliability.