The Reliability FM network

By Fred Schenkelberg

Reliability Engineering Basics, Statistics, Accelerated Testing, Program Assessment and Improvement.

Listen in on in depth discussions held during the live monthly Accendo Reliability webinar series.... more

Download on the App Store

Download on the App Store

Get it on Google Play

FAQs about The Reliability FM network:

How many episodes does The Reliability FM network have?

The podcast currently has 627 episodes available.

The Reliability FM network episodes:

August 11, 2023Making Assumptions
Making Assumptions
Abstract
Kirk and Fred discuss the use of assumptions in the reliability models, testing, and predictions
Key Points
Join Kirk and Fred as they discuss how assumptions are used in reliability engineering and how they can be misleading or very limited in making reliability assessments.
Topics include:
Assumptions must be made about potential stresses and environments the product will be used when creating reliability testing or evaluations. The assumption that all supply chains will always be capable and never have a process “excursion” is optimistic and process variations do lead to latent defects
Kirk once was a part of a committee organized to determine why the reliability predictions made by the “reliability engineering” organization were not correlating to actual field failure rates. They seemed to not question that they were using industry accepted standard failure rates (i.e. MIL HNBK 217F) that were derived from technology many years before and that they were not aware of what was failing in the field nor the root causes.
Some companies continue to require reliability predictions using models that have little to no correlation to actual field failure mechanisms, because that’s what has always been done.
There are some mechanical wear out mechanisms, such as a magnetic tape wear to the read/write head glass surface, that can be measured and the rate of wear can be reasonably known and valid estimates of life can be made.
The life entitlement in solid state electronics for nominally built devices is almost always well beyond the systems technological obsolescence, and most failures are due to errors in design or manufacturing, or customer abuse.
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
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.
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 886 Making Assumptions appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
...more
28min
August 08, 2023 Why You Should Avoid MTBF
This morning’s email included a question on why I was so against using MTBF. This episode is my answer and why one should avoid MTBF
...more
0min
August 07, 2023Naked Mole Rat
Naked Mole Rat
Abstract
Chris and Fred discuss the naked mole rat … an animal that doesn’t appear to age at all! Ever! And they are ugly …
Want to know why we are talking about these animals and what that has to do reliability? Listen to this podcast!
Key Points
Join Chris and Fred as they discuss the naked mole rate, which is one of the very few things in the world that appears to never age. Why are we talking about this? Well … many textbooks and reliability engineers assume that all of their machines and products are ‘naked mole rats.’ Confused?
Topics include:
Things that have a constant hazard or failure rate are like naked mole rats. Naked mole rats do die, but this is mainly from predation, injuries and other environmental stresses that cause death. So this means that a 40-year-old naked mole rate is just as likely to die today as a 5-year-old naked mole rat. And this is alien to our understanding of life, entropy and everything else.
… and many textbooks and engineers simply assume that machines and products have constant hazard rates. This also happens if people only use the MTTF or MTBF to characterize the reliability of something. So every time a reliability engineer or textbook assumes a constant hazard rate or use the MTTF or MTBF and nothing else … they are essentially saying that the product or machine in question is a naked mole rat.
Do you really think that your product, machine, vehicle, plant et cetera is a ‘naked mole rat’? Well … you do if you only ever use the MTTF or MTBF, or assume a constant hazard rate. Please don’t do 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
Show Notes
The post SOR 885 Naked Mole Rat appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
...more
19min
August 04, 2023Allocating Reliability - Conundrum
Allocating Reliability – Conundrum
Abstract
Chris and Fred discuss one of the challenges of allocating reliability … in response to a question from one of our listeners. Might you be able to learn something as well!
Key Points
Sam wrote in asking about how we go about allocating reliability targets to a system with 10 subsystems, each with 50 to 100 components. Some components are continuously operating, and some are ‘on demand.’ The system availability needs to be at least 90 %, including 15 days of planned maintenance over 2 years, along with no more than 5 days of unplanned downtime (on average) per year. How do we do this?
Topics include:
Keep things flexible for your design teams by not being too specific early. For example … the requirements above are all about availability … and not reliability. So resist the urge to convert things into MTBF and MTTR at the highest levels and then allocate goals because this constrains your design teams tremendously. If it is easier for a design team to come up with something that fails less often (high MTBF) but takes a long time to repair (high MTTR) as opposed to something that fails more often (low MTBF) but can be quickly repaired (low MTBF), let them make the call! If you have already come up with high-level MTBF and MTTR targets, you might have just unnecessarily ruled out a cheap and fast design solution!
Then learn how to allocate goals to make it easy on yourself. Ever heard of allocation factors? Get these right and you ensure that the most ‘complex’ parts of your system have the most ‘flexibility’ when it comes to allocated reliability (and availability) targets. Check out our Reliability Allocation webinar at this link.
It is way more important to manage reliability than set it in stone. No targets should be fixed in stone as you simply don’t know which components will have the most challenges. Sometimes one component that works perfectly well, doesn’t ‘like’ working with another component that also works perfectly well … then what? If you do reliability allocation well, you will have some ‘design reliability margin’ that leaders and managers can use to solve crises without any additional cost or delay.
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 884 Allocating Reliability – Conundrum appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
...more
26min
August 01, 2023 Using ISO 31000 for Risk Based, Decision Making
After the webinar, you will be able to develop your own framework for risk based, problem solving and risk based, decision making.
...more
1h 5min
July 31, 2023How to Start First Job
How to Start First Job
Abstract
Carl and Fred sharing suggestions for new reliability engineers on what to do when starting your first job.
Key Points
Join Carl and Fred as they discuss their own experiences and lessons learned on how best to begin work as a new reliability engineer.
Topics include:
What to do on your first day on the job.
If possible, seek a mentor to help you getting started on your new job
When being introduced to new team members, ask individuals for time to talk in more depth; learn from them the “rules of the road”
Soft skills are essential; reference chapters 11 and 12 of our new book.
Learn terminology that relates to your new job.
Always do what you are asked to do; but, try to do *more* than asked.
Get a reputation for high quality and value
Learn on the job, extra study, talk with people
First impressions are important
You will make mistakes, how you react and learn from mistakes is very important
Don’t be afraid to ask questions; be curious.
Know your objectives and what you are supposed to do; know your deliverable
Take extra time to learn company procedures and processes
When working remote, turn on cameras; learn to read body language
Request feedback from management and internal customers; never be defensive.
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 883 How to Start First Job appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
...more
27min
July 28, 2023Operator Error?
Operator Error?
Abstract
Carl and Fred discussing a question from an Inside FMEA reader on the subject of Process FMEA. It brings up a general topic of root cause, and whether assigning the cause to various forms of operator error is useful.
Key Points
Join Carl and Fred as they discuss how to determine the Cause in Process FMEA.
Topics include:
Deming teaches us to focus on the process, not the person.
Deming’s red bead experiment.
Westinghouse experiment on efficacy of measurements
Erroring proof the design and the process can improve the manufacturing or assembly process
Robust design can help reduce process sensitivity
Some Process FMEAs use “Operator Error” as most common Cause; better is to determine and describe the deficiency in the process itself.
Operator training and work instructions are both important
Make designs as easy to assemble as possible; Design for Manufacturing/Assembly
What about human element, if manufacturing process no longer needs human involvement?
Improve the process, don’t blame the operator
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 882 Operator Error? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
...more
24min
July 25, 2023 How Do I Do MTBF Testing?
If you want to learn more about MTBF testing and how it might (or might not) work … then view this recording.
...more
0min
July 24, 2023Can You Change an Orgaization?
Can You Change an Organization?
Abstract
Chris and Fred discuss if it is possible to change any organization? Which is a topical issue for reliability engineers who feel that no one takes it seriously.
Key Points
Join Chris and Fred as they discuss
Topics include:
What are the key barriers? Lots. It starts with organizations that have been doing ‘the same thing’ for so long, that people’s ability to do the ‘same things’ is now a valued character trait and is now so embedded in the culture that it is hard to change. And then there is the perception that the challenge is insurmountable (which is a leadership issue). And then there are organizations that worship bureaucracy and process (not critical thinking). Sometimes people stop listening to the key players (and consultants with the same message are taken way more seriously).
Leadership needs to be invested and supportive. And that means knowing when to get out of the way. In reality, if leadership is not interested, the scope for change is limited. For example, Western militaries have struggled with reliability since World War II. Western militaries have lost virtually every ‘war’ since World War II (Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, … ) Western Military Leaders have never been accountable for these losses. The same leaders are not accountable for poor reliability. And so if failure is not a thing, success is not worth pursuing.
‘Industrial tourists’ or ‘take a turn leaders’ never result in long-term commitment. Many leaders are ‘fast-tracked’ or part of the chosen few who spend short stints of time leading a vast array of groups within an organization for the purpose of giving them ‘exposure’ or ‘experience’ or make them become ‘well-rounded’ en route to being part of the highest leadership group (generals, admirals, directors, chief ‘X’ officer …). This means the high-performers are pre-selected before they have a chance to perform. And instead of leading the engineering, supply chain, or manufacturing organizations, they are then advised from the bottom up to help them get ‘well-rounded.’ But there is no long-term commitment, nor genuinely inspiring leadership … because they don’t know what they are doing. So the talent leaves, because they can’t get the jobs that the ‘industrial tourists’ get.
You do need to try. You do need to run at that brick wall. You might be surprised how making cogent arguments for reliability engineering to happen can take you. But if you sustain multiple concussions from hitting that wall … its up to you to find another organization with a less insurmountable brick wall.
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 881 Can You Change an Organization? appeared first on Accendo Reliability.
...more
38min
July 21, 2023Bathtub Curve Flaws
Bathtub Curve Flaws
Abstract
Carl and Fred discussing a reader question having to do with the use of the reliability bathtub curve, including the efficacy of the curve itself.
Key Points
Join Carl and Fred as they discuss what is right or wrong with the reliability bathtub curve.
Topics include:
Is the “bathtub curve” more fictional than real?
The concept that there are three distinct areas of failure rates over time is not useful.
Introduction to Reliability tutorials often teach this curve.
Based on experience, we have rarely seen a “flat” part of the curve.
Discussion around why people still assume an exponential distribution
The most important thing is not where you are on the failure rate vs time plot; but rather what failure mechanisms are being encountered.
“The Future of FMEA” article stimulated a reader question about models
Eyes wide open: Be aware of the assumptions and limitations of models, before using them
When using models, you need to be in for the long term, and work to improve the model over time.
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.

SOR 880 Bathtub Curve FlawsCarl S. Carlsonshare
Social:

Link:

Embed:
" readonly />

https://episodes.reliability.fm/sor/sor-880-bathtub-curve-flaws.mp3

Download Audio RSS
Show Notes
...more
24min

FAQs about The Reliability FM network:

How many episodes does The Reliability FM network have?

The podcast currently has 627 episodes available.