Do make compromises around gathering and analyzing data since you only need to report MTBF?

Do you use MTBF (exponential distribution) based test planning when you know the product has a non-constant hazard rate?

These questions came up this week via email looking for advice when directed to ignore the actual situation and just do what the customer wants.

I’m traveling this week, rather jet-lagged today, so going to keep this one short.

How would you answer these questions? What advice would you give someone using exponential based reporting, test planning, or data analysis approaches knowing the customer expects that process yet the data and your experience suggest you should use another method  (Weibull or MCF, for example)?

Please add you comments below and let’s prepare a list of what one should say or use to respond to such actions.

By it’s cover no doubt. The title and cover are important, this is true. When you judge a reliability book we often first see and evaluate the cover.

The author? Do you buy the book based on who wrote or edited it?

Do you have a quick scan or check for key features before you add the book to your library? I’m curious how you select a book to use a reference for your work. The books we read and use for work shape our work, thus it’s important to have the right works at our disposal. [Read more…]

“Do not improve reliability as it cuts into our repair activity profits.” Is this a way to run a reliability program?

I’ve seen this in action and that company is no longer in business. In another situation the field service department withheld vital information to improve products lest his department (and self-importance) dwindle.

Is this a bad business model, or is it just my thinking it not so smart? [Read more…]

Different Data Same Decision

Let say you have some time to failure data on your equipment. A common action is to calculate the MTBF. All well and good until you expect to make a meaningful decision based on the calculation.

Using just the mean of the data, the MTBF value is likely to provide you with a less-than-useful bit of information. Thus, your decision will be rather random or worthless.

Let’s explore just how this simple calculation of perfectly good data can mislead your decision-making. [Read more…]

The Importance of the Discussions around MTBF Questions

The best way to help others understand and stop using MTBF is to engage them in a discussion. I get questions concerning MTBF or reliability a few times a week. I attempt to answer each and every one, plus adding a follow up question or two.

In person or online, ask and answer MTBF questions. You not only improve your understanding of MTBF and reliability, you improve your still at tell stories to help affect change across your industry. [Read more…]

Let’s Demand Better Reliability Engineering Content

Teaching reliability occurs through textbooks, technical papers, peers, mentors, and courses. The many sources available tend to use MTBF as a primary vehicle to describe system reliability.

What has gone wrong with our education process? [Read more…]

Now for something completely different. Roaming the net looking for an interesting advertisement or data sheet with a ‘great’ (i.e. bad) example of the mis use of MTBF, ran across that MTBF is actually being used by at least one government for department budgeting.

by Mark Powell

Most of us have seen reliability specified using a requirement like the following:

The Zeus 5000 SUV shall have an MTBF of 144,269.5 miles with a 90% confidence.

Some readers may not have seen reliability requirements specified in any other way.  What they have always seen has read something like:  The widget shall have an MTBF of X with a Y% confidence.  This reliability requirement structure is rather ubiquitousin military and aerospace specifications, which along with Mil-HDBK-217, have been major influences in reliability specification practices for decades in many industries.

After a discussion with a client this morning, and their motor vendor’s reliability engineer asked for a reference for a sample size calculation formula I recommended, I had a short email exchange with said reliability engineer. In my note with the references, I included an aside with a link to this site. He liked the site and agreed that MTBF was often misunderstood and not useful. He asked if the store sold much in the way of NoMTBF logo’ed merchandise – it doesn’t btw. I thought about how and why this site and the store exist and that invited my passion on this topic once again.

We need to do something to further the eradication of MTBF.

[Read more…]