Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site
With the kind permission of Wayne Nelson and Robert Abernathy, we are posting an article on the analysis of repair data. As you may know, the assumptions made when using simple time-to-failure analysis of repairable systems may provide misleading results. Using the analysis method outlined by Wayne is one way to avoid those costly mistakes.
[Read more…]
On one of my first vendor visits, they proudly showed us the control charts behind glass near the conference room. They were nicely printed, all in perfect control, and rather odd. A control chart belongs on the production line, where the operators make the measurements. They are of little value when automatically collected and printed out once a month for display-only purposes. [Read more…]
Giving a presentation last week and asked if anyone uses an 85%RH/85°C type test, and a couple indicated they did. I then asked why.
The response was – just because. We have always done it, or it’s a standard, or customers expected it. The most honest response was, ‘I don’t know’.
Why is the test being done? Who is using the information for a decision? What is the value of the test results? If ‘just because’ is the best you can say about a test, why do it?
I’ve often railed on and on about the inappropriate use of MTBF over Reliability. The often cited rationale is, “it is simpler”. And, I agree, making simplifications is often necessary for any engineering analysis.
It goes too far when there isn’t any reason to knowingly simply when the results are misleading, inaccurate or simply wrong. The cost of making a poor decision based on faulty analysis is inexcusable.
During RAMS this year, Wayne Nelson made the point that language matters. One specific example was the substitution of ‘convincing’ for ‘statistically significant’ in an effort to clearly convey the ability of a test result to sway the reader. For example ‘the test data clearly demonstrates…’
As reliability professionals let’s say what we mean in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Thus, you may suspect, this topic is related to MTBF.
[Read more…]
One way to create a robust product or system is to consider all the stresses and design to withstand those stresses. We often do not know all the stresses, magnitudes, and ranges of variation. We know that many materials degrade with time, yet we do not know precisely how much or how fast. We also do not know what new stresses may arise or how stresses will change over time.
I am a rock climber. Climbing relies on skill, strength, knowledge, luck, and sound gear. Falling is a part of the sport, and with the right gear, the sport is safe. So far, I’ve enjoy no equipment failures.
I do not know, nor want to know, the MTBF (or MTTF) of any of my climbing gear. I’m not even sure this information would be available. And, all the gear I use has a finite chance of failing every time the equipment is in use. Part of my confidence is that the probability of failure is really low.
[Read more…]
The classic formula for availability is MTBF divided by MTBF plus MTTF. Standard. And pretty much wrong most of the time.
Recently, working for a bottling plant design team, we pursued design options to improve the availability and throughput of the new line. The equipment would remain the same: filler, capper, labeler, etc. So we decided to gather the last six months or so of operating data, which included up and down time. Furthermore, the data included time to failure and time to repair information.
[Read more…]
Let’s look at the characteristics of a sound reliability metric and how MTBF is not true or beneficial. A metric should be true, beneficial, and timely. We’ll start with a rock climbing analogy.
A bolted hanger along a rock climbing route is often a welcome site. It provides the climber safety (clipping the rope to the bolt), direction (this is the way), and confidence. Does MTBF as a metric do the same for your organization?
As climbers, we count on the bolts to provide support in case something goes wrong or we need to rest along the route.
A reliability metric is often used in the same way as a climbing bolt. The measure, whether MTBF, Reliability, or Failure Rate, assures that the product’s reliability performance is as expected.
The organization’s profits are or will be safe. The development team uses the measures to guide design and supply chain decisions. The measure provides confidence to the organization regarding meeting customer expectations around reliability.
[Read more…]
Note: This first article in the NoMTBF campaign was published on April 1st, 2009. Thus, we’ve been at this and making progress for a long time and come a long was since starting the NoMTBF campaign. I am looking forward to your comments, contributions, and suggestions.
Fred
At first, MTBF seems like a commonly used and valuable measure of reliability. Trained as a statistician and understanding the use of the expected value that MTBF represented, I thought, ‘Cool, this is useful.’
Then, the discussions with engineers, technical sales folks, and other professionals about reliability using MTBF started. And the awareness that not everyone, and at times it seems very few, truly understood MTBF and how to properly use the measure.
[Read more…]
Within an organization or a team, we collectively know a lot. We, again collectively, have a wealth of information. And, if you follow my Mom’s advice, we learn something new every day. We also forget a lot every day. When we forget something that we learned by making a mistake or error (learning the hard way), we are prone to repeat that mistake or error. [Read more…]
Let’s say that you and your team have done well. Your products or systems are reliable. They work, customers are happy, and the cost of unreliability is low. That’s the goal, right? Congratulations are in order.
However, enjoying great reliability performance was the goal. It is what we expected. It’s what we worked to achieve. Now what?
[Read more…]
It’s rare to have sufficient samples for all the desired reliability work. It’s common to have very few samples. So, how does one manage to learn what is necessary to learn from the few samples? How can you maximize the value of reliability work in the scant sample situation? [Read more…]
A month ago, I received a question, “Why the castles for the artwork?” It was not the first time someone wondered why we use line drawings of old stone building features or sketches of castle layouts. It is safe to say it was and remains a purposeful artwork selection to promote community around Accendo Reliability.
[Read more…]
I recently received a question about the artwork found at Accendo Reliability. “Why castles?” So, I provided an answer and thought I would share it in this webinar. Also, let’s talk about how and why Accendo Reliability got started and how it’s been doing over the past ten years. [Read more…]