Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site
Well, we are going COTS, so there is no point creating (or demanding) reliability specifications for it.
Really?
I was just speaking to a couple of engineers – from different organizations – who were coincidentally struggling with the reliability of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) systems. COTS is a funny term. Big contractors, governmental organizations and militaries use the term ‘COTS’ a lot. But they tend to be the only ones who do. [Read more…]
In one of my recent webinars on ‘reliability culture,’ I was asked a really good question. Someone (let’s call him ‘Tim’) asked me:
How do I get the most out of my ‘ad hoc’ reliability team?
Tim had recently created a ‘reliability team’ made up of people from different areas of his organization. These people were smart, qualified, but had non-reliability engineering day jobs. They weren’t qualified reliability engineers. They weren’t idiots. And they couldn’t devote all their time to reliability. [Read more…]
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.
A common refrain from managers and engineers alike (as it relates to making or maintaining reliable products) is:
How do we know if we are there yet?
This makes reliability engineering sound like driving a car, sanding a piece of wood, mowing the lawn, or any other endeavour where efforts perfectly align with progress.
This doesn’t work for reliability. Reliability can be easy to achieve, but it needs to be thought about in a different way. And when you do, everything becomes easier. [Read more…]
I often talk to engineers who have just been told that they are now a ‘reliability guy or girl’ for their organization. The CEO or perhaps a director decides that reliability is now important, so a group of poor unfortunates are hastily and collectively anointed as ‘the’ reliability program. Is this familiar?
Sometimes this works. Sometimes these rebranded ‘reliability guys and girls’ create amazing programs that [Read more…]
Chris and Fred discuss what you need to think about when selecting your next reliability engineering course. What course do you need to do to become a better engineer (and more valuable to your organization)?
ᐅ Play Episode
Chris and Fred discuss what came first … reliability or statistics? Reliability of course! There are plenty of organizations that focus on baking reliability into designs without the need for statistics. But statistics are a part of reliability engineering. So what is the relationship between the two? Listen to this podcast to learn more.
ᐅ Play Episode
Reliability engineering has an image problem. It is seen as an imbugerance that destroys budget, schedule and fun. People sometimes think reliability engineering is simply statistics, data analysis and other mind-numbing stuff. Reliability purgatory. Which brings us to the first reason you need to do reliability engineering.
#1 – Reliability engineering is not reliability purgatory. Reliability purgatory is all effort and no outcomes. Reliability happens at the point of decision. Design decisions. Manufacturing decisions. Maintenance decisions. True reliability engineering helps you make better decisions – which often comes down to organized judgment and not statistics.
A recent student of mine was an engineer for a rail corporation. Let’s call her Liz. Liz kept asking me ‘what do I need to put in a contract’ to make sure my suppliers take reliability seriously? She kept asking this over, and over, until I got the penny to drop. Liz eventually realized that she was the one who had to take it seriously. [Read more…]
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…]
Chris and Fred discuss the apparent differences between what you find in textbooks and what you are supposed to do when it comes to good reliability engineering.
ᐅ Play Episode
Remember how we were told as kids in school that we had to study hard to get into college or university? There was that ongoing, implied threat that not getting into university or college would ruin our career. Or at least, be very bad.
It turns out it may not be that bad after all. For example, over half of Apple’s employees don’t have 4-year degrees. Why? [Read more…]
Every organization needs to be able to explain ‘why’ it is here. In fact, an organization’s ‘why’ is . Check out Simon Sinek. One of his favourite phrases is that ‘people don’t buy what you do – they buy why you do it.’
People buy Apple products because of they enjoy how they interface with devices that are part of a bigger and seamless ecosystem. All their competitors try to emulate this. Amazon is all about customer experience. [Read more…]
Chris and Fred discuss what warranty and reliability mean for each other. They sounds like very related topics or ideas. But are they? Listen to this podcast to learn more.
ᐅ Play Episode
Chris and Fred discuss what the idea of ‘6 sigma’ means for reliability. What is ‘6 sigma?’ Is it a buzzword? There are lots of different ideas on what ‘6 sigma’ is. We are always on the look out for amazing new things that are going to help us do reliability stuff. Want to learn more? Listen to this podcast.
ᐅ Play Episode