Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • CMMSradio
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • Critical Talks
    • Asset Performance
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Hero
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Breaking Bad for Reliability
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • The RCA
      • Communicating with FINESSE
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Hardware Product Develoment Lifecycle
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Special Offers
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
      • FMEA Introduction
      • AIAG & VDA FMEA Methodology
    • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction
      • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
    • Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
Home » Articles

Articles

Find all articles across all article series listed in reverse chronological order.

by Miguel Pengel Leave a Comment

Demystifying the ISO55001 Certification Process

Demystifying the ISO55001 Certification Process

Many years back when I started my Asset Management journey, the ISO55000 series of standards was always lingering overhead as the “bible” of asset management. The problem was that the systems and processes we tend to learn in this field stem from those standards, but rarely do we deep dive into the documentation and try to mind map for ourselves how it all fits together.

When I started Pardus Consulting, figuring out this big to small picture structure was important in order to offer clients a thorough ISO audit, but what I encountered was usually along the lines of businesses asking : “What actually is the process?, How long does it take? How much does it cost? Who certifies, who audits?” These sort of questions were a recurring trend, and to be fair, the process and system towards certification isn’t clearly written in a single concise document that is easy to find.

If you’re exploring ISO 55001 certification for your organization, you’ve probably run into this confusing landscape of auditors, assessors, consultants, and certification bodies. Who does what? What’s actually “official”? And how does the whole process work from start to finish?

I’ve taken some time to deep dive and write this article so that Asset Management Professionals and Businesses can get a good and detailed overview on the process, roles and responsibilities, and ballpark costs, after all gaining ISO certification isn’t a small feat.

What Is ISO 55001?

ISO 55001 is the international standard specifying requirements for an asset management system. It gives organizations a framework to manage assets systematically throughout their lifecycle—from the moment you acquire an asset until you dispose of it.

The standard works for any type of asset (physical, financial, or intangible) and any size of organization. Whether you’re running a water utility, a rail network, a manufacturing plant, mine, or a hospital, the same framework applies.

Here’s the important distinction that trips people up: the ISO 55000 series contains multiple documents, but only ISO 55001 is the one you can actually be certified against. ISO 55000 provides the overview and terminology—the “what” and “why” of asset management. ISO 55001 contains the actual requirements—the “how” with specific criteria your organization must meet. ISO 55002 offers guidance on implementing those requirements.

When someone talks about “ISO 55000 certification,” they’re technically using the wrong term. You get certified against ISO 55001 because that’s where the auditable requirements live.

The Certification Hierarchy: Understanding Who Does What

The ISO certification ecosystem is essentially a private, voluntary, internationally-coordinated system. There’s no government mandate requiring certification in most jurisdictions—its value comes from international recognition and stakeholder confidence.

Understanding the hierarchy helps you navigate the process and avoid common pitfalls.

At the top sits ISO itself, the International Organization for Standardization, which develops and publishes the standards. Below that, the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) coordinates mutual recognition between countries, ensuring that a certificate issued in Australia carries weight in Germany or Canada.

National accreditation bodies—organizations like UKAS in the UK, ANAB in the USA, or JAS-ANZ in Australia and New Zealand—accredit certification bodies to audit against specific standards. These are the watchdogs that ensure certification bodies are competent and operating properly.

Certification bodies (also called Conformity Assessment Bodies or CABs) are the organizations that actually conduct audits and issue certificates. Names you might recognize include BSI, TÜV, Bureau Veritas, DNV, Lloyd’s, and SGS. These are the only entities that can issue internationally recognized ISO 55001 certificates.

This last point is crucial. No matter how qualified a consultant might be, they cannot issue an official certificate. Only accredited CABs can do that.

Consultants vs. Certification Bodies: A Critical Distinction

One of the biggest sources of confusion in the certification world is the difference between consultants and certification bodies. These are fundamentally different roles, and understanding the distinction will save you headaches.

Consultants and assessors play an advisory role. They help you prepare for certification by conducting gap assessments, supporting implementation, providing training, and assisting with internal audits. Their job is to identify where you fall short of requirements and advise you on how to close those gaps. A gap assessment inherently involves giving advice—that’s the whole point.

Certification bodies, by contrast, play a judgmental role. They assess whether your system meets requirements and make the pass/fail decision. They cannot advise you on how to fix problems because that would create a conflict of interest—they’d be auditing their own recommendations.

This separation exists by design. Certification bodies operate under strict rules (ISO 17021-1 and ISO 17021-5) that prevent them from providing consultancy to organizations they certify. If a CAB could both advise you on building your system and then audit that same system, the certification would lose its credibility as independent verification.

This is why the typical certification journey involves two separate organizations: a consultant to help you prepare, and a certification body to conduct the formal audit. Many organizations actually prefer this arrangement because specialist asset management consultants often have deeper domain expertise than generic CAB auditors, and consultants can give you the hands-on guidance that CABs are prohibited from offering.

Gap Assessment vs. Certification Audit: What’s the Difference?

Here’s the revised version with that explanation woven in:

A gap assessment and a certification audit might look similar on the surface—both involve someone reviewing your asset management practices against ISO 55001 requirements. But they serve completely different purposes and have very different implications.

A gap assessment is typically conducted by a consultant and produces a report identifying where your current practices fall short of requirements, along with recommendations for closing those gaps. It’s advisory in nature. The output has no formal standing—it’s a diagnostic tool to help you prepare.

A certification audit is conducted by an accredited certification body and determines whether you receive an official ISO 55001 certificate. The auditors assess your implemented system against requirements and produce findings categorized as conformities, minor non-conformances, or major non-conformances. Critically, they cannot give advice on how to fix problems—they simply report what they find. This isn’t a limitation of individual auditors; it’s a structural rule. Certification bodies are prohibited from consulting because it would create a conflict of interest—they’d effectively be auditing their own advice.

This is precisely why most organizations engage a consultant before approaching a certification body. It’s not redundant work; it’s fundamentally different work. Think of it as the difference between a tutor and an examiner. The consultant can coach you, review your drafts, suggest solutions, and tell you when you’re not ready. The certification body can only pass or fail you. If you skip the preparation and fail your certification audit, you’ve paid for an audit, received a list of problems with no guidance on solutions, and now face paying for a re-audit once you figure things out on your own. Most organizations find the cost of consultant preparation far outweighs the risk of failing certification cold.

That said, using a consultant isn’t mandatory. Organizations with mature, well-documented asset management practices sometimes proceed directly to certification. But they’re the exception.

Here’s what catches some organizations off guard: gap assessment results have absolutely no impact on your certification audit. They’re separate processes conducted by separate organizations. If your consultant says you’re ready for certification but the CAB auditor finds major non-conformances, the CAB’s decision is the only one that matters. Your consultant’s assessment carries no weight in the formal certification process.

This isn’t a flaw in the system—it’s the whole point. The certification audit is supposed to be an independent verification, not a rubber stamp of someone else’s opinion.

What Are the ISO 55001 Requirements?

ISO 55001 organizes its requirements around seven main clauses, following the same high-level structure used by other ISO management system standards like ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

The standard starts with understanding your context—the internal and external factors affecting your asset management, your stakeholders and their expectations, and the scope of your asset management system. This grounds everything else in your specific situation rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all approach.

Leadership requirements ensure that top management isn’t just signing off on asset management but actively driving it. This includes establishing an asset management policy, defining roles and responsibilities, and demonstrating genuine commitment to the system’s success.

Planning requirements address how you identify and respond to risks and opportunities, set asset management objectives that align with organizational objectives, and develop your Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP). The SAMP is a key document that translates high-level organizational goals into specific asset management direction.

Support requirements cover the resources, competence, awareness, communication, and documented information needed to make the system work. You can’t run an effective asset management system without the right people, skills, and information.

Operation requirements deal with the actual planning and control of asset management activities, management of change, and how you handle outsourced functions.

Performance evaluation requires you to monitor and measure how well your system is working, conduct internal audits, and have top management regularly review the system’s performance and suitability.

Finally, improvement requirements ensure the system doesn’t stagnate. You need processes for handling non-conformances, taking corrective action, and driving continual improvement.

How Long Does Certification Take?

The honest answer is: it depends enormously on where you’re starting from.

The gap assessment phase typically takes one to four weeks, depending on your organization’s size and complexity. This gives you a clear picture of what work lies ahead.

Implementation and remediation is where the timeline varies most dramatically. If your asset management practices are already mature and you mainly need to formalize and document what you’re doing, this might take three to six months. If you’re building significant new capabilities from scratch, expect twelve to eighteen months or more. Large, complex organizations often take longer simply because there’s more to coordinate.

You’ll need your system to be operating and generating evidence before you can be certified—typically at least three months of operation. Auditors want to see that your system actually works in practice, not just that you’ve written good documentation.

Internal audits covering all requirements need to happen before your certification audit. Budget one to four weeks for this, plus time to address any findings.

The certification audit itself happens in two stages. Stage 1 is a documentation review that typically takes one to three days, where the CAB assesses whether you’re ready for Stage 2. Stage 2 is the implementation audit—the main event—where auditors come on-site to verify your system is working as documented. This takes anywhere from two to ten days depending on your organization’s size and scope.

After a successful Stage 2, the certification decision typically comes within two to four weeks.

Adding it all up, organizations starting from scratch should realistically plan for twelve to twenty-four months. Those with mature practices needing formalization might achieve certification in six to twelve months. Organizations transitioning from PAS 55 (the predecessor standard) often complete the process in three to six months.

What Does Certification Cost?

Costs vary widely based on your organization’s size, complexity, number of sites, geographic spread, and your starting point.

Gap assessment fees from consultants typically range from $5,000 to $50,000 or more, depending on scope. Implementation support—if you need it—can run from $10,000 into the hundreds of thousands for large, complex organizations starting from scratch. Training costs for staff awareness and internal auditor development add another few thousand to $20,000 or more.

Certification body fees are typically calculated based on auditor days required, which correlates to your organization’s size and complexity. Stage 1 audits might cost $3,000 to $15,000; Stage 2 audits typically represent the largest single cost, ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 or more for large organizations.

Annual surveillance audits run roughly thirty to forty percent of your initial certification cost. At the end of the three-year cycle, recertification audits cost similar amounts to the initial certification.

Don’t forget the hidden costs: staff time diverted from regular duties for preparation and audit participation, system improvements identified during gap analysis, and potential re-audit fees if major non-conformances are found. These internal costs often exceed the external fees.

The Certification Process: Step by Step

The journey from deciding to pursue certification to receiving your certificate typically unfolds in three phases.

Preparation begins with a gap assessment to understand where you stand against ISO 55001 requirements. With that diagnostic in hand, you move into implementation—developing your asset management policy, creating your SAMP, establishing objectives, building processes, creating documentation, and training staff. Once implemented, you run the system and collect evidence that it’s working. Before approaching a certification body, you’ll conduct internal audits covering all requirements and have top management conduct a formal review of the system’s performance.

Certification starts with selecting and engaging an accredited certification body. Verify their accreditation for ISO 55001—don’t assume. The Stage 1 audit reviews your documentation to confirm you’re ready for Stage 2. The Stage 2 audit is the on-site implementation assessment where auditors interview staff, review records, observe processes, and assess conformance against all requirements. If you pass—possibly with some minor non-conformances that need addressing—the CAB issues your certificate.

Maintaining certification requires annual surveillance audits where the CAB verifies continued conformance. At the end of the three-year cycle, you undergo a recertification audit to renew for another three years.

What Happens If the Consultant Says “Ready” But the Certification Body Disagrees?

This scenario worries many organizations, but it’s actually not the crisis it might seem.

Remember: consultants advise, certification bodies decide. These are fundamentally different roles with no formal relationship to each other. A consultant’s gap assessment is their professional opinion about your readiness—nothing more. It carries no weight in the certification process.

If your consultant assessed you as ready but the certification audit uncovers major non-conformances, the CAB’s decision stands. You won’t receive certification until those issues are resolved. Your consultant’s reputation takes a hit for misjudging your readiness, but there’s no legal consequence—they weren’t claiming to issue a certificate in the first place.

You address the findings, implement corrective actions, and the CAB verifies the fixes (either through document review or a follow-up audit). Once resolved, certification proceeds.

This actually happens more often than you might think. Consultants and CAB auditors may probe different areas or interpret requirements differently. The consultant’s assessment was a point-in-time judgment based on what they observed. The CAB auditor brings fresh eyes and may dig into areas the consultant didn’t examine as deeply.

This is precisely why choosing an experienced, reputable consultant matters—but even the best assessment can’t guarantee certification outcomes.

Is Certification Worth It?

Certification makes strong sense when stakeholders require or highly value it—regulators, major customers, investors, or contract partners who expect independent verification of your asset management capabilities. Industries like utilities, transportation, oil and gas, and public infrastructure increasingly see ISO 55001 certification as standard practice.

Certification also provides value when you want the discipline that external auditing brings. Knowing that an independent auditor will assess your system annually creates accountability that internal-only approaches sometimes lack. The certification process itself often surfaces improvement opportunities that internal reviews miss.

On the other hand, certification may not be worth the investment if your stakeholders don’t require it and wouldn’t change their behavior based on your certification status. Many organizations run excellent asset management systems without formal certification—the standard is freely available as a framework for internal use.

Consider your specific context: who cares about certification, what doors does it open, and do those benefits justify the costs? There’s no universally right answer.

Personally I’ve seen companies in the Middle-East, Europe and the USA request this sort of certification help a lot more than in Australia, however in Australia, specifically Mining and Processing, the workings of ISO55001 are mostly well embedded and mature (from personal experience).

Filed Under: Articles, Asset Management in the Mining Industry, on Maintenance Reliability

by Carl S. Carlson Leave a Comment

Quality Objective 11: ADDRESS HIGH-RISK FAILURES

 “In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” Albert Einstein

There is no more important outcome from an FMEA than identifying and addressing high-risk issues. In this article, I will outline how to evaluate an FMEA against the FMEA Quality Objective for addressing high-risk failures.

What is meant by “address high-risk failures”?

The level of risk in an FMEA is identified in the Risk Priority column. For each failure mode and corresponding effect and cause, the FMEA team designates the level of risk, such as “high” or “medium” or “low.” High-risk failures are those that the FMEA teams assigns the highest level of risk, based on appropriate FMEA standard or company policy.

“Address” means “to deal with, handle, or give attention to a problem, issue, or topic in a deliberate and effective way.”

In an FMEA, each of the high-risk failure modes must be addressed by effective actions that reduce risk to an acceptable level. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, Inside FMEA Tagged With: FMEA Quality Objectives

by Fred Schenkelberg 7 Comments

3 Ways to Improve your Reliability Program

3 Ways to Improve your Reliability Program

A Few Simple Ideas to Improve Your Reliability Program

Spending too much on reliability and not getting the results you expect? Just getting started and not sure where to focus your reliability program? Or, just looking for ways to improve your program?

There is not one way to build an effective reliability program. The variations in industries, expectations, technology, and the many constraints shape each program. Here are three suggestions you can apply to any program at any time. These are not quick-fix solutions, nor will you see immediate results, yet each will significantly improve your reliability program and help you achieve the results you and your customers expect. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by Ray Harkins Leave a Comment

Risk Management Models

Risk Management Models

Turning Uncertainty into Informed Action

Co-authored by Mike Vella

At its core, risk management exists to protect us. It aims to reduce both the likelihood and the consequences of adverse events, whether those events affect safety, quality, cost, equipment, or project schedules.

Good risk management is not reactive. It is proactive. It assumes that future events can be influenced and, to some degree, controlled. That belief alone fundamentally changes how organizations plan, design, and operate.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, on Tools & Techniques, The Manufacturing Academy

by Semion Gengrinovich Leave a Comment

Continuous Improvement

Continuous Improvement

Coordinating multiple improvement programs effectively within an organization requires a structured approach that ensures alignment, communication, and collaboration across various teams and departments. Here are some key strategies and techniques to achieve this:

1. Establish Clear Objectives and Common Purpose

– Align Teams Around a Common Purpose: Ensure that all teams understand and are committed to the overarching goals of the organization. This shared sense of purpose helps keep everyone focused and motivated.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, on Product Reliability, Reliability Knowledge

by Mike Sondalini Leave a Comment

Developing Enterprise Asset Management, Maintenance and Reliability KPIs

Developing Enterprise Asset Management, Maintenance and Reliability KPIs

Developing Maintenance KPIs, Reliability KPIs, And Enterprise Asset Management KPIs Of Value For Good Decision Making

When developing maintenance KPIs, or any performance measure, you will have no real ‘grass-roots’ support, nor lasting success, until people are involved in setting their own measures and key performance indicators.

—

I’ve been tasked with developing maintenance KPIs and equipment reliability KPIs.

I would be thankful if you guide me to a proven list of maintenance and reliability KPI’s. We would like to measure performance on individual plant and corporate levels.

We have 120 plants for various products: metals, chemicals, petrochemicals, fertilizers.

We are not currently using unified measures, i.e. every plant is going in its own direction, and we now are looking to unify maintenance and reliability across the corporation by introducing a reliability solution to create a scientific maintenance strategy. Part of our strategy is to introduce specific KPIs which have to be achieved by all plants.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, Life Cycle Asset Management, on Maintenance Reliability

by James Reyes-Picknell Leave a Comment

Is Perfection Getting in Your Way?

Is Perfection Getting in Your Way?

Perfection is difficult to achieve. It takes a lot of work and that delays progress. In operational environments that can lead to lost or deferred opportunities, and leave money on the table.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, Conscious Asset, on Maintenance Reliability

by Greg Hutchins Leave a Comment

Risks in the Electric Vehicle World

Risks in the Electric Vehicle World

Safety and sustainability are the major considerations within the growing electric vehicle industry, there is lots of excitement and lots of challenges in the fast-moving electric vehicle industry and both descriptions quickly work their way into the conversation.

  • Gasoline- and diesel-powered cars are familiar, quick to refuel, and can travel long distances between fill-ups, all of which can’t (yet) necessarily be said about electric cars.
  • EVs, however, bring with them a whole unique set of positives, from an inherently exhilarating drive feel to a significantly less harmful impact on the environment.
  • The current knocks against EVs will be resolved in time as more people adopt the technology.

The electric car has gone mainstream with sleeker, more affordable options to choose from. Because electric car models are newer than their gas-powered counterparts, many consumers are unaware of their options aside from the many recently announced carmakers’ electric vehicles. In this article, we will focus purely on the pros and cons of all-electric cars.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, CERM® Risk Insights, on Risk & Safety

by Nancy Regan Leave a Comment

When to apply Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

When to apply Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)

The Surprising Answer!

True or False? Can RCM Be Applied at Any Stage in an Asset’s Lifecycle.

In this video, I tackle a common question: Can Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) be applied at any point in an asset’s lifecycle? The answer is True! While it’s best to start RCM as early as possible—ideally at the design stage—many successful RCM programs around the world have been implemented long after systems were fielded.

Because RCM is a zero-based process, applying it to legacy equipment offers a chance to reevaluate years of tradition and habits, ensuring that the most safe and cost-effective Failure Management Strategies are in place. RCM’s flexibility means it can deliver great results at any point in an asset’s lifecycle.

I’m Nancy Regan, and I hope you enjoy this quick dive into the versatility of RCM. Thank you for watching!

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, Everyday RCM, on Maintenance Reliability

by Joe Anderson Leave a Comment

Defect Elimination: The Cornerstone of Equipment Reliability

Defect Elimination: The Cornerstone of Equipment Reliability

In the pursuit of operational excellence and equipment reliability, defect elimination stands as a powerful and proactive strategy. It focuses on identifying and addressing the root causes of failures and inefficiencies, rather than repeatedly treating the symptoms. By targeting the sources of defects, organizations can significantly reduce downtime, extend asset lifespans, and improve overall productivity. 

What is Defect Elimination? 

Defect elimination is the systematic process of identifying, analyzing, and removing defects that lead to equipment failure or suboptimal performance.These defects can take many forms, including design flaws, operational errors, poor maintenance practices, or even environmental conditions. The goal is to ensure that equipment operates as intended, reliably and efficiently, with minimal intervention.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, on Maintenance Reliability, ReliabilityXperience

by Hemant Urdhwareshe Leave a Comment

Weibull Analysis of Right-Censored Data with a Free Software

Weibull Analysis of Right-Censored Data with a Free Software

Dear friends, we are happy to release our103rd technical video! In this video, Hemant Urdhwareshe explains and illustrates procedure to perform Weibull Analysis of right Censored data (or suspensions) using a free open-source software ‘Reliability Analytics Toolkit’. Hemant is a Fellow of ASQ and is certified by ASQ as CRE, Six Sigma Master Black Belt, CQE and CMQ/OE. This will help viewers to understand how to perform Weibull Analysis of incomplete right censored data without investing in expensive software.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, Institute of Quality & Reliability, on Tools & Techniques

by Kerina Epperly Leave a Comment

The Curious Case of “Normal” Bearing Failure

The Curious Case of “Normal” Bearing Failure

When Poor Habits Become the Norm

Opening Scene

Imagine an intricate and lengthy production line, where every minute of inactivity costs thousands of dollars. The constant buzz of motors and conveyors conceals a profound tension: production goals are approaching, supervisors are vigilant, and the pressure remains unyielding. 

In a constrained environment with a limited maintenance budget and sparse spare parts, your inexperienced and stretched-thin team constantly reacts to urgent breakdowns, prioritizing speed over thoroughness. Shortcuts become necessary for survival, leading to misaligned work and temporary fixes. While immediate repairs may succeed, small defects accumulate, resulting in entrenched bad habits and hidden failures. Eventually, a critical breakdown occurs, revealing the underlying issues, marking the start of a necessary investigation. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, on Maintenance Reliability, The Reliability Crime Lab

by JD Solomon 2 Comments

Systems Thinking Improves Reliability and Dependability (15 ways to do it)

Systems Thinking Improves Reliability and Dependability (15 ways to do it)

Organizations can systematically enhance reliability and dependability by integrating key approaches into the development, deployment, and maintenance processes of their products and systems. Systems thinking rules! Despite subtle differences in terminology, regular assessments and updates should be conducted to address emerging challenges and technological advancements. This article provides a brief description and demonstration of several key approaches for enhancing reliability and dependability. 

Reliability and Dependability Are Often Used Interchangeably

When it comes to choosing the right word to describe a product or service, the terms “reliability” and “dependability” are often used interchangeably. However, there are subtle differences between the two that can impact how they are perceived in practice and by consumers. 

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, Communicating with FINESSE, on Systems Thinking

by Semion Gengrinovich Leave a Comment

Reliability Allocation

Reliability Allocation

In the realm of complex electromechanical systems, reliability allocation is a critical process that demands a delicate balance between safety, cost, and performance. As engineers, we are tasked with creating systems that not only meet functional requirements but also operate safely, efficiently, and cost-effectively over their intended lifespan. This article explores key strategies for optimal reliability allocation, emphasizing the importance of safety while considering economic factors and system performance.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, on Product Reliability, Reliability Knowledge

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

5 Clues Using MTBF is Not Helping

5 Clues Using MTBF is Not Helping

Have you ever heard the claim that “We use MTBF, as it’s working just fine”?

They may be profitable and successful in the marketplace. Is MTBF serving them well?

Probably not.

One way help the folks claiming MTBF is alright is to illustrate using a better reliability metric may provide an improvement over using MTBF. Asking a few questions may find the inevitable chink in the MTBF armor.

  1. Any early failures due to supplier or assembly error?
  2. Any test design to check for how long the system will last?
  3. Ever notice maintenance seems to improve or degrade system performance?
  4. Did you fix the time frame for the calculation of MTBF?
  5. Do you plot and track the month to month changes in MTBF?

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • …
  • 273
  • Next Page »

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

Recent Articles

  • Demystifying the ISO55001 Certification Process
  • Thermal Stress on Shafts
  • Quality Objective 11: ADDRESS HIGH-RISK FAILURES
  • 3 Ways to Improve your Reliability Program
  • Risk Management Models

© 2026 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

Book the Course with John
  Ask a question or send along a comment. Please login to view and use the contact form.
This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.