Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site
Let's have in depth discussion during the live monthly webinar series. Reliability Engineering Basics, Statistics, Accelerated Testing, Program Assessment and Improvement. Catch up or review past events below.
To attend an upcoming live event visit the Live Events section of the site which lists the available upcoming webinars.
Find one that looks interesting and register for the event. You will receive login directions and reminders prior to the event. Plus you will be able to join the discussion during the event.
by Fred Schenkelberg
What role does ‘wishful thinking’ play in the interpretation of reliability test results? Hopefully, none. A well-designed test will likely provide meaningful results. You and your team may not like the results, yet the results will be clear. [Read more…]
by Christopher Jackson
OK … that is a little macabre. But reliability engineers need to ask themselves this question a lot. And they are a lot of wrong answers out there. Some textbooks say that it is ‘commonly accepted’ to use this thing called the exponential distribution. Other textbooks say that if the ‘Weibull shape parameter is 6 or greater … redesign!’ Do you have any idea what this means? If not, this webinar will be a nice little introduction for you!
[Read more…]
by Fred Schenkelberg
Products that are reliable are also green. This is a rather simple argument as if an item is designed and built well, it lasts a long time, thus avoiding the landfill. When living in northern Bavaria years ago, the apartment came with a full bedroom set. The entire set was both beautiful and functional. When asked about the furniture, I learned it was over 300 years old. [Read more…]
by Fred Schenkelberg
Reliability testing is expensive. For that expense, the testing results should provide timely, meaningful results. Results that provide actionable information and insights.
The idea of running a set of standard tests or tests that we ‘commonly run’ in many cases as little value. Each test (experiment) should be conducted for specific reasons related to the current project and current knowledge. [Read more…]
by Christopher Jackson
There comes a time in everyone’s reliability ‘journey’ where it is either too hard or too expensive to keep perfecting your product, system or service. Steel can only be ‘so’ pure. Clearances can only be ‘so’ accurate. Surfaces can only be ‘so’ smooth. And software can only be ‘so’ perfect. In fact it might turn out to be better and cheaper to have two ‘average’ components with one acting as a backup to the other. The ‘premium’ component might be too expensive or otherwise not as reliable as the backup system. Welcome to fault tolerance! This is where we design products, systems or services to be able to handle faults, imperfections, deviations, errors and lots of other things. [Read more…]
by Fred Schenkelberg
I often describe reliability work as we do everything quality does and we do it over time. Quality folks may disagree. What is not in dispute is work in reliability engineering we use a lot of different ‘quality’ tools. That is because many quality tools lend themselves to data analysis and problem-solving, [Read more…]
by Christopher Jackson
We all know what the ‘root cause’ is … right? It is the ‘thing’ that caused something bad to happen. The problem is, the definition of ‘root cause’ has been abused, misconstrued, re-written, misinterpreted and all sort of other things that erode from what it is supposed to be. And by that I mean it has to be something that we can do something about (and make better). [Read more…]
by Fred Schenkelberg
Not every discussion about reliability goes well. Some conversations make it obvious reliability is an afterthought or considered a barrier to creating and shipping products. Other conversations seem to support reliability work, yet really are little more than lip service. And, then there are meaningful conversations that improve the reliability culture within the organization. [Read more…]
by Christopher Jackson
If nothing changes, then nothing changes. Change happens when we decide to do something. The status quo remains if we decide to do nothing. We make decisions every day. We do it so often that it might seem like a trivial thing to do. But we so often get it wrong. We might be influenced by emotion, prejudice, time pressure, budgetary stress, or ‘mental comfort.’ [Read more…]
by Fred Schenkelberg
DFR has been a term in and out of fashion for some time. One of the many DFX type programs. DFR, unlike some of the other Design for X programs has to exist within the overall culture of the organization to be successful. The premise that design occurs at the point of decision implies that each design may have the appropriate information to properly consider the decision’s impact on reliability performance. [Read more…]
by Christopher Jackson
Everyone knows why we do reliability, and reliability things like FMEAs. Customer experience. Organization reputation. Reduced warranty claims 10 years from now. But these are boring reasons that really don’t motivate me to take FMEAs seriously now. Why should I invest so much time into an activity where that benefits the ‘company’ or the ‘customer’ in the future but won’t make an immediate difference where my boss will give me a ‘gold star’ on my next performance appraisal? Right? Wrong! [Read more…]
by Fred Schenkelberg
The more you understand the failure mechanisms the easier it is to design an accelerated life test, (ALT). Yet, we often do not have all the information we would like to draft an ALT. So, what do we do then?
[Read more…]
by Christopher Jackson
There are so many books on leadership, management, more leadership, reliability, quality, customer first, even more leadership, et cetera. But there remains a common refrain I hear repeatedly from reliability engineers struggling to make a difference: ‘reliability is just not relevant to my organization.’ There is a common thread to this common refrain – we only hear it from people who work in organizations that don’t have a clear understanding of ‘why’ they are doing what they do.
by Christopher Jackson
Reliability engineers LOVE Weibull plots. They often make sense out of a bunch of seemingly random points. Or at least we feel like they make sense. Anything that turns a bunch of random points into a straight line is automatically making sense … right? Wrong. It is up to us as reliability engineers to look at Weibull plots and work out what is going on. [Read more…]
by Fred Schenkelberg
When conducting an accelerated life test it is essential to carefully consider the acceleration factor (AF). Like warp drives shortening distance, accelerated life tests (ALT) attempt to shorten time. Think warp factor and acceleration factor as being similar, well sort of. [Read more…]