Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share Speaking Of Reliability: Friends Discussing Reliability Engineering Topics | Warranty | Plant Maintenance
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
Speaking Of Reliability: Friends Discussing Reliability Engineering Topics | Warranty | Plant Maintenance
Speaking Of Reliability: Friends Discussing Reliability Engineering Topics | Warranty | Plant Maintenance episodes
- Dealing with White Space ProblemsDealing with InterfacesAbstract
Carl and Fred discussing interfaces and how they can be addressed in reliability programs.
Key PointsJoin Carl and Fred as they discuss why interfaces are important and what happens if they are ignored.
Topics include:
- More than 50% of total problems can occur at interfaces between components or adjacent subsystems
- Interfaces can be a physical connection, energy transfer, data exchange, material exchange or other type of interface
- Problem: Item A (in spec) does not work well with Item B (in spec)
- FMEA Block Diagram helps ensure interfaces are addressed in Design FMEA
- System Reliability Modeling needs to include interfaces between “blocks”
- How should interfaces be modeled?
- Some interfaces are integrated into the sub-assembly
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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 578 Dealing with Interfaces appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - Value of Being ProactiveValue of Being ProactiveAbstract
James and Fred discussing the benefits and some constraints of shifting your maintenance program to a proactive stance.
Key PointsJoin James and Fred as they discuss the ways getting ahead of potential failures creates value, i.e. profit, for your organization.
Topics include:
- Reactive versus proactive approaches and when each makes sense
- A few different ways that avoiding downtime is of value and can be quantified
- Connecting your program to what is most important within your organization
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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 577 Value of Being Proactive appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - Influence Change BehaviorInfluence Change BehaviorAbstract
Chris and Fred discuss how you can influence behavior. Good behavior. Like taking reliability seriously. It is not about what you say when you are forced to say it. It is about what you like saying and what you make your people do. So there are some things you can do to influence people in a good way. But it takes some effort on your behalf. Keen to learn more? Listen here!
Key PointsJoin Chris and Fred as they discuss the difference been influencing behavior you value versus saying you value behavior. What do we do (as leaders or members) that shape the culture of our organization? – especially when it comes to reliability.
Topics include:
- Saying and doing are very different. And humans are really good at seeing what you do as a leader … and work out if it aligns with what you say.
- What you do shows what you value. If your staff needs to spend half of each week updating your weekly report or presentation, then you (sad to say) actually value administration and presentations … more than making something reliable for example. And this isn’t changed if you have a ‘contract’ with suppliers and vendors that you think guides behaviors.
- There is an adage that ‘people do what is measured.’ So one of the best ways to influence good behavior is to make the things you want visible. Like current field failure rates or the cost of failure.
- Talk. Talk. Talk. There is a saying that ‘talk is cheap.’ And that can be true. But if you are a leader and you go around and ask about how the work is going, then you are sending a message that the work is valuable. Not spreadsheets or checklists. And people will take notice of this.
- Bureaucracies often focus on avoiding the stuff you don’t want. Checks and balances to make sure something bad doesn’t happen. But it is possible to create bureaucracies where you seek out the behaviors you want are much more effective. It is a simple switch in focus from what you don’t want to what you do want.
- And ‘contracts’ are not the final word. You might think that if you have a contract then there is nothing you can do in terms of changing or influencing contractor behavior. But they are human beings who are typically basically motivated to do ‘good.’ Which is often more important than a contract. So there can always be a human relationship that will help everyone concerned.
- It comes down to what you care about. The why of your organization. Your fundamental purpose. And if the people around you believe 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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 576 Influence Change Behavior appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - Cultural Avoidance of EngineeringCultural Avoidance of EngineeringAbstract
Chris and Fred discuss the organizations that culturally avoid engineering. Those organizations that for some reason, never ask for the data, the math, the tests, the thinking or anything else that might actually help you understand why your thing fails.
Key PointsJoin Chris and Fred as they discuss the organizations that culturally avoid engineering. Those organizations that for some reason, never ask for the data, the math, the tests, the thinking or anything else that might actually help you understand why your thing fails.
Topics include:
- Cultural avoidance needs three things – (1) defendability, (2) transferral, and (3) no strategy. Defendability means you can (apparently) prevent other people from accusing you of not taking (reliability) engineering seriously. And this often means a brutal focus on process and checklists. Transferral means that you have transferred technical decision-making to so-called ‘technical specialists.’ Like ‘chief engineers,’ ‘safety guys,’ and the ‘reliability team leader.’ And because they aren’t actual leaders, they quickly devolve into people who complete these checklists. And then there is no strategy. As in, not spending any time on making communication, future-proofing or reliability engineering strategy. There might be plenty of posters on the wall saying how ‘cutting edge’ your organization is. But everyone’s calendar shows where they actually focus their energies …
- … and transferring decision-making always means risk aversion. If you are a ‘chief engineer’ in an organization that culturally avoids engineering, then you will almost certainly be the person that every engineering decision has to go to. Because the actual leaders are avoiding this decision. But the chief engineer doesn’t share the same accolades as the true leaders when the project is on time, on budget, reliable, and so on. But … the chief engineer will where the ramifications if something goes wrong. So it is in the chief engineer’s personal interest to overprescribe tests, demand perfect information, and everything else he or she needs to make a perfect decision. Which delays the program and costs money. Which makes them a pariah. And then repeat.
- Failure Analysis (FA) means analyzing failure. Not just replacing everything. Not just shipping out a new unit to a customer. Not just calling it as an outlier until the financially crippling body of evidence (… think fleet recalls) forces you to conclude otherwise. Working out why things are failing is not a ‘PhD thesis.’ It is good reliability practice.
- Bureaucratic groups (like militaries) are the worst at this. Big call. But most reliability professionals know this. For whatever reason, meeting budget, schedule, committee approval, governmental approval become the most important things for a particular project. And what we are trying to accomplish gets completely lost. Which is understanding why our thing will fail. Not hoping it won’t.
- Understanding the mechanics, the math (you know … the first principles) makes you uniquely useful across all industries. If you focus on this – people will think you are a savant! But you are not. This is critical thinking. And critical thinking can sometimes cause immediate delays. It might blow out what you were hoping to achieve this week. But … this might save you years and millions of dollars of failures later on. Organizations that avoid engineering are always the ones that deal with atrocities later on.
- Leaders of organizations that don’t avoid engineering decisions show that they value engineering. If the CEO asks an engineer to take them through, step by step, how a simulation was performed to show that fatigue cracking was not a problem … then the CEO shows to that engineer how valuable making something reliable is. But if the CEO only ever talks about time to market or launch dates … then that powerfully shows that is what matters. And human beings are really smart at picking up on 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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 575 Cultural Avoidance of Engineering appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - When to Run Qualifications AgainWhen to Run Qualifications AgainAbstract
Chris and Fred discuss when you should run qualification tests again. A qualification test can be anything – essentially all your product, system or service has to do is meet or exceed something to get a tick in the box. So if you make a minor change to your system – do you need to run all your qualification tests again? Can you get away with not doing any? Listen to this podcast to learn more!
Key PointsJoin Chris and Fred as they discuss when we have to do ‘qualifications’ again? And by again we mean after something has changed … which means we have reason to do perhaps question if our product, system or service is what it once was. If something has changed (even if it is minor) do we need to run all qualification tests again?
Topics include:
- Issue #1 – minor changes having HUGE consequences. There have been instances where something as apparently minimal as changing the thread size has caused a massive problem down the line somewhere. And sometimes this new problem would not have been picked up by all the previous qualification tests.
- Issue #2 – minor changes triggering TONS of useless qualification tests. Some organizations have made minor changes, and their policy requires all qualification tests to be completed. Jeopardizing schedules, budgets, and happy customers. And sometimes this means that engineers are disincentivized to change anything because of the fear of qualification tests.
- Critical thinking. Qualification tests. They are different. A first-principles approach to failure ALWAYS trumps checking your brain at the door and simply running all the old qualification tests. And if you are changing something, then you risk qualification tests ceasing being irrelevant.
- Example – karaoke! Fred talked about a manufacturer making a new karaoke ‘video game’ controller. But this game controller was a little bit different – it was designed to detect players clapping in time with the beat. And when you think about this … this changes the way your karaoke controller will be used. A lot! So think it through! How do people clap? How will they hold it when they clap? And keep going …
- Regulators require everything to be done. Do they? Do they really? You might be surprised. If you can submit a cogent argument to a regulator that explains why a minor change does not need the full suite of qualification testing because you have come up with a shorter and more appropriate test … you might be surprised what happens! Or you can test for everything. Pay for the testing. Delay your schedule. And so on.
- And basing today’s qualification tests on yesterday’s failures … then … well … you know. You keep making sure you have fixed all the problems you have already fixed. The new problems then tend to run amok.
- Just do critical thinking stuff. Brainstorm. You might not have time to do a full FMEA … but think about what has changed, and what this might affect. Understand what the manufacturing change is. What could that mean in terms of bending, vibration, stress, voltage spikes and so on? Just think!
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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 574 When to Run Qualifications Again appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - What do We Have Confidence In?What do We Have Confidence In?Abstract
Chris and Fred discuss what it means to have confidence in something. Confidence can mean all things to all people. How confident are you as a person? How confident are you in someone else? What confidence do you have in a conclusion? Statisticians and reliability engineers need to talk to each other where the term confidence has a clearly defined and fixed meaning. But does it? How confident are you in the results of a test? How confident are you in a test that has 75 data points versus one that has 70? How confident will your boss be in you when you present the outcomes of these tests? Have these tests shaken YOUR confidence? Best you listen to this podcast.
Key PointsJoin Chris and Fred as they discuss how we have confidence in our conclusions resulting from data analysis or any other investigation. We often use the term confidence intervals to describe the outcomes of an analysis. But it is more than that.
Topics include:
- What is a confidence interval? A confidence interval is typically a range of numbers where you express a level of probability (confidence) that the true value of something lies within that range. There is a whole other discussion to be had on what this actually means – because in some schools of statistics confidence refers to the percentage of times you are right when you make such a claim! But more often than not, a confidence interval is used as first described above.
- A test might give a confidence interval. But was the test (or model) right? You can use any model to create a confidence interval. But if you get the wrong model – then you get a different confidence interval. The good news is that if you use a ‘wrong’ model then the confidence interval will be larger – which means you don’t over-estimate your confidence. But by just getting the model right, you can drastically reduce the confidence interval you have on something. Which means you are less uncertain.
- But confidence is not just about your statistical activity. It is the comfort a decision-maker has in your conclusions. Fred talked about the time he conducted an analysis on a solder joint. And the decision-maker gained a sense of confidence only when Fred described why and how he knew what the dominant failure mechanisms were. A failure mechanism is a physical, chemical or electrical process that ends up in failure. So you can have the best statistical process in the world, but if your decision-maker doesn’t have in you … then there is no confidence!
- … and to have confidence, you need to focus on the right thing. This means knowing what the dominant failure mechanisms are. You might run a test on a component for a particular failure mechanism, but if it is the wrong one then you should have little confidence in the outcomes of your analysis. So we need to know which failure mechanisms matter (the ‘vital few.‘) And a very important deduction might be that if we work out what our dominant failure mechanism is, this is the thing we need to have the most confidence in. So get and get it!
- … and to have confidence (when testing), we need to have the right test conditions. So how confident are you in understanding how customers or users will use your product, system or service? Because this needs to be part of the (lack of) confidence you have in your test results.
- … and manufacturing can only make things worse. If this is the case, you may question the relevance in fussing so much over confidence in test results during design.
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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 573 What do We Have Confidence In? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - Minimum Viable ReliabilityMinimum Viable ReliabilityAbstract
Carl and Fred discussing whether there is such a concept as “minimum viable reliability”?
Key PointsJoin Carl and Fred as they discuss what is the minimum acceptable reliability for a product.
Topics include:
- Minimum viable reliability is defined by customers using the product
- When a customer experiences a failure, their reliability is very low
- Reliability can be viewed from the viewpoint of the customer
- What is the definition of failure?
- What is the biggest expense of reliability failure?
- Setting good reliability requirements answers the question of acceptable reliability
- Re-frame the question: What are the reliability requirements that meet the objectives of the company? Are they agreed to by management?
- Products should not be “just reliable enough”?
- How to answer management question about are we reliable enough to proceed?
- Data driven answer to “how reliable are we”?
- Taking a stand when safety is a problem
- Importance of having a good reliability plan? This can help answer if you are OK to proceed.
- Being good at anticipating what your customers will define as failures
- Include assumptions and limitations when answering questions about predicted reliability
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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 572 Minimum Viable Reliability appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - Safety and ReliabilitySafety and ReliabilityAbstract
Carl and Fred discussing the differences and similarities between safety and reliability, and how to address them in reliability programs.
Key PointsJoin Carl and Fred as they discuss the bodies of knowledge that relate to safety, quality and reliability.
Topics include:
- Products that do not fail are generally safer than products that do fail
- “Fail-safe” products demonstrate a relationship between safety and reliability
- Is safety a subset of reliability or vice versa? What about quality?
- Safety as a design requirement
- Importance of designing-in safety and reliability
- Safety as a prime reason for the development of autonomous vehicles
- Safety and reliability can have different metrics
- FMEA and Hazard Analysis
- FMEA high-severity issues addressed first
- Management should see and buy into level of safety risk
- Team-based approach considers all aspects of design (all the “ilities”)
- The role of trade-off studies
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 RSSShow NotesThe post SOR 571 Safety and Reliability appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - SOR 570 Policy – Minimum Acceptable Failure AnalysisPolicy – Minimum Acceptable Failure AnalysisAbstract
Kirk and Fred discussing when a failure rate of a product is acceptable or not acceptable.
Key PointsJoin Kirk and Fred as they discuss how levels of criticality of different cases of failure help determine the level of failure analysis, effort and cost to fix it.
Topics include:- Some failures are worth the cost and expense of a a deep dive, but it can be hard to determine when it first occurs.
- Changes by the procurement purchasing cheaper components during production is a constant potential for components that cause failures even though the component specifications are the same.
- Fish-bone diagrams can help determine likely causes of failure and isolate the root cause of failure, sometimes requiring invasive or destructive that can destroy the evidence of the cause.
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 RSSShow NotesHere is a link to Kirk’s book co-authored with John J. Paschkewitz available from Amazon “Next Generation HALT and HASS: Robust Design of Electronics and Systems”
Here is the link to the US ARMY/CALCE PAPER presented at the 2013 RAMS conference event mentioned in this podcast– “Reliability Prediction – A Continued Reliance on a Misleading Approach” . This is a government document that is in the public domain and should be distributed a read by any engineer that believes failure prediction methodology is useful or beneficial during product development.
The post SOR 570 Policy – Minimum Acceptable Failure Analysis appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min - Dealing with False Positives or False NegativesDealing with False Positives or False NegativesAbstract
Kirk and Fred discussing when to act on improvement of reliability from testing, HALT results, or change in field failure rates
Key PointsJoin Kirk and Fred as they discuss testing and dealing with the information derived from HALT and consider them a false reason to improve product robustness.
Topics include:- Sample size is critical to determining whether a weakness found in HALT requires comparing limits between sample units or from HALT of predecessor products.
- Rate of change in the field failure rate of a product in production is the critical to determine if a new latent defect or application needs investigation.
- How do we set trigger levels for acting on an increase in failure rates from testing or the field?
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 RSSShow NotesHere is a link to Kirk’s book co-authored with John J. Paschkewitz available from Amazon “Next Generation HALT and HASS: Robust Design of Electronics and Systems”
Here is the link to the US ARMY/CALCE PAPER presented at the 2013 RAMS conference event mentioned in this podcast– “Reliability Prediction – A Continued Reliance on a Misleading Approach” . This is a government document that is in the public domain and should be distributed a read by any engineer that believes failure prediction methodology is useful or beneficial during product development.
The post SOR 569 Dealing with False Positives or False Negatives appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
0 min
About Speaking Of Reliability: Friends Discussing Reliability Engineering Topics | Warranty | Plant Maintenance
From the publisher's feed
Gain the experience of your peers to accelerate improvement of your program and career. Improve your product development process, reliability or warranty performance; or your plant uptime or asset…
performance. Learn about reliability and maintenance engineering practical approaches, skills, and techniques. Join the conversation today.
Best of Speaking Of Reliability: Friends Discussing Reliability Engineering Topics | Warranty | Plant Maintenance
Ranked by our users in the last 21 days