Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset 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
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

Reliability Engineering is More Than Tools

Reliability Engineering is More Than Tools

Reliability engineering is a blend of disciplines from material science to asset management. We use problem-solving, design, maintenance, and statistical tools on a regular basis, yet that is not the only thing we do.

Having met a few engineers that define their role as a reliability engineer as conducting HALT or FMEA only, strikes me as to what most believe we do, or should do, as a reliability engineer. It is true that someone may specialize by choice or chance on one tool, yet even then is that all they do?

I don’t think so.

A Typical Day

Let’s follow a couple of imaginary engineers through their typical day. Meet Bill and Sue, they work at different companies that each make a range of similar products. Bill and Sue work with multiple design and manufacturing teams as the assigned reliability engineer.

Bill has a HALT focus

Bill found that HALT (Highly Accelerated Life Test) testing early in a program has been very successful at finding
design defects and provided a focus for manufacturing improvements, thus he regularly recommends and conducts HALT. At the start of his typical day, he checks his messages and finds three requests from three teams he supports.

  1. Provide an update on Shasta testing – is it ready to start shipping?
  2. Draft a reliability and environmental test plan for Whitney – how many samples?
  3. Any input on the reliability goals for the new program Hood?

For the first request, he reviews the three rounds of HALT testing and the plans for HASS (Highly Accelerated Stress Screening), creates a short summary and replies that the product is ready. When asked what the expected field failure rate will be, Bill says HALT does not provide that information, yet he is confident that the product will be as reliable or better than existing products given the team’s response to HALT findings.

Later in the morning, Bill attends the Whitney team meeting with an outline of the testing plan. He recommends multiple rounds of HALT and a few extra units for specific environmental testing done in a HALT fashion. He requests a total of ten prototypes. The Whitney team lead wants to be sure the testing includes any new anticipated stresses since this is the first outdoor environment for one of their products. After some discussion, Bill has the assignment to investigate methods to conduct margin testing for rain, snow, and ice.

After some discussion, Bill has the assignment to investigate methods to conduct margin testing for rain, snow, and ice.

After lunch, the program manager for the Hood program calls Bill for input on the product goals. Since Bill tends to spend most of his time in the HALT lab he hasn’t read the marketing or financial reports, nor the draft reliability goal statements. He doesn’t need those values for his work, so tends to ignore them. He says the Hood goals are fine by him.

The rest of the day is spent conducting HALT and drafting reports on the results.

Sue has a customer focus

Sue found that helping her teams make good decisions while considering reliability related information helped the team create reliable products. She found that a range of tools provided a range of solutions, and fitting the right tool for a given situation often yielded the desired result.

Like Bill, Sue started her day checking messages. She too received three requests.

  1. Provide an update on Columbia testing – is it ready to start shipping?
  2. Draft a reliability and environmental test plan for Rogue – how many samples?
  3. Any input on the reliability goals for the new program Klamath?

For the first request, she reviews the progress the team has made identifying risks using FMEA and HALT, then the progress in collecting and creating the necessary time to failure information for the system reliability block diagram, and reviewed the shortlist of critical to reliability items the supply chain and manufacturing teams will need to monitor.

The team already knew the product’s latest reliability estimates and Sue took the action item to review the failure rate projects with the finance team as they established warranty accruals.

Later in the morning, at the Rogue team meeting, Sue lead the discussion on the expected test plan and the major decision points that may alter the plan based on the results of the risk analysis tools (FMEA and HALT). Given a new technology, being used for the first time on Rogue, they discussed the need to characterize the time to failure distribution or model for the new style of solder joint attachment. The team needed to know if the new idea was reliable enough for use in the product by April 1st, so they had time to pursue an alternative route just in case. Sue spent the rest of the morning drafting an accelerated life test plan that would meet the timeline, budget, and accuracy required for the team to make the right decision.

Just after lunch, the program manager for the Klamath project asked for inputs on the goal statements for the new project. Considering the goals and apportionment of the goals guided the entire team, she spent the next half hour with the program manager reviewing the four elements of the goal in detail. They reviewed the functional requirements of the document and agreed on the primary (most important) functions to provide a focus for reliability evaluations. They discussed what was known and unknown about the expected use environment and conditions, including the expected rate of use. This section would require more information thus Sue took the action item to work with customer service and marketing teams to find additional information.

Then they reviewed the three couplets of probability of success and durations. Senior management wanted fewer early life failures (failures in the first three months) as a recent product had higher early failures and a noticeable impact on sales due to word of mouth recommendations.

They set an aggressive goal and quickly outlined steps to highlight steps to achieve the goal. Then they discussed the project’s overall business plan, including pricing and the cost of service calls and replacements. Given the overall business objectives and customer expectations concerning warranty, they set a couplet of reliability and duration related to the warranty period.

Finally, they discussed how long customers generally expect to use their products and the relationship between long-term reliability and brand loyalty. Also considering the technology planned for the new product they set a reliability target and duration. They noted that elements of the new design may require long-term reliability analysis given their current uncertainty.

Summary and Results

In both cases, Bill and Sue served their project teams well and all teams delivered reliable products to the field. Bill was sought after for HALT testing advice and gladly helped promote this useful tool to improve reliability performance. Sue found she was asked about service plans, design aspects related to product ease of use, and financial modeling use of reliability information. They both spent plenty of time in the lab evaluating products, finding opportunities for improvement and influencing their teams.

Working with the team

In both cases, whether focusing on one tool or a range of tools, the key element is they worked with teams to help them make decisions. They presented clear results and regularly asked the ‘what if’ and ‘what is the risk’ type questions. They both guided their teams to create reliable products.

Just using tools, whether HALT or RBD modeling limits the value of a reliability engineer. They need to be part of the team, engaged with decision making and sought after for advice.
Sure, I prefer the range of tools approach as illustrated by Sue, yet Bill’s approach works just fine. Sue enjoyed a broader scope and additional influence as she used tools from failure analysis to financial modeling.

There is no one way to run a reliability program or be a reliability engineer. There are many paths to creating a reliable product. To a large

To a large degree, it’s not the tools we use, it is the influence that we wield that makes the difference.


 

Related:

Role of Reliability in an Organization

You are a Reliability Leader, Now Make a Difference

Filed Under: Articles, Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics, on Product Reliability Tagged With: process

« OC Curve with Binomial Method
Common Mode Failures »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Article by Fred Schenkelberg
in the Musings series

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

  • Risk Prioritization in FMEA – a Summary
  • What Are Best Practices for Facilitating Qualitative Assessments?
  • So, What’s Still Wrong with Maintenance
  • Foundation of Great Project Outcomes – Structures
  • What is the Difference Between Quality Assurance and Quality Control?

© 2023 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy

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.