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

Many reliability engineers know about the 'bathtub curve' which is often used to characterize the hazard rate of a product. The 'flat bottom' of this curve is often associated with the 'useful life' of a product. So this could be the focus of testing and analysis ... right? Well - you need to understand that the 'flat bottom' is (by definition) caused by randomly occurring external events (lightning, voltage spikes, human error and so on). So if we are testing for the flat bottom - are all we doing is testing the environment we operate in? In a way - yes. And this makes everything more difficult. So if this sounds like a problem you are trying to grapple with, listen to this podcast.

We often define maintainability primarily in terms of how long it takes to do maintenance. But what if you need a Formula 1 pit crew to do the maintenance? ... or each technician needs years of training? ... or 129 separate tools are required for a single product? ... and so on. Focusing on duration means that we miss opportunities to improve maintainability in a way that improves business (and make more revenue). Listen to this podcast if you would like to learn more.

Reliability Still Not a Solo Activity Abstract Adam and Fred discussing how reliability still suffers as a solo activity in programs Key Points Join Adam and Fred as they discuss how reliability still suffers as a solo activity in programs Topics include: The history of how reliability has progressed form a single individual operating alone to [...]

Decision Making and Reliability Abstract Adam and Fred discussing how program decisions are made regarding reliability Key Points Join Adam and Fred as they discuss how program decisions are made regarding reliability Topics include: Using Adam’s “Anchoring” methodology to ensure there is a good ROI for each tool used in the program Are tools delivering the [...]

What if we make something 'too reliable?' What? Are you suggesting that there are examples of organizations who don't investigate why their products fail ... but are willing to through money, time and resources to reliability solutions to problems that don't exist? And in so doing making it 'too reliable?' Never happened. Your organization is 'ignorant,' 'enlightened' or on a continuum between the two. An 'enlightened' organization knows why their product fails, so only focuses on those issues. Want to learn more? Listen to this podcast.

Humans can fear change. New tech is (by definition) going to introduce change. If you are an asset manager, what are you looking for in engineers who say to you that we need this 'new contraption' to improve reliability or availability? One of the things you should be looking for is evidence that the engineer understands how your business makes money, and how their proposal helps that. If you are a designer, what do you think new tech does for the reliability of your product? These are some of the questions we address in this podcast.

Is Meeting the Standard Enough? Abstract Carl and Fred discussing a question: is meeting regulatory standards sufficient to ensure a product is safe and reliable? Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss whether or not meeting regulatory or internal standards is sufficient? What else needs to be done? Topics include: The importance of [...]

Risk-Identification Tools and Their Use Abstract Carl and Fred discussing risk-identification tools, one of the four categories of reliability tools. Key Points Join Carl and Fred as they discuss the discovery process that occurs during product development, essential to improving reliability in product designs. Topics include: What is risk identification, and how can it be [...]

If you make a product, then your aim is to make the customer happy. The customer is essentially paying you to make them happy through the functions your product provides. But why do so many engineers and manufacturers say that the customer is 'wrong?' If you can argue that even though the customer isn't happy, but your product meets 'specifications' then it is them - not you. This is crazy. You own the specifications. The customer is the arbiter (and will give you their money based on their decision). If this is an issue in your experience, listen to this podcast.

Our old product worked, so the old test plan is great. Right? We can use it again ... can't we? No. Unless your new product is identical to the old product. Which means you don't have a new product. Reliability test planning requires critical thinking - not a checkbox that needs to be ticked. Listen to this podcast for more!