Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
    • About Us
    • Colophon
    • Survey
  • Reliability.fm
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • NoMTBF
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • ASQR&R
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Maintenance 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
      • RCM Blitz®
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Field Reliability Data Analysis
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability by Design
      • Reliability Competence
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
      • Reliability Knowledge
    • 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
      • Institute of Quality & Reliability
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Statistical Methods for Failure-Time Data
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Glossary
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinar Sources
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • Your Courses
    • Live Courses
      • Introduction to Reliability Engineering & Accelerated Testings Course Landing Page
      • Advanced Accelerated Testing Course Landing Page
    • Integral Concepts Courses
      • Reliability Analysis Methods Course Landing Page
      • Applied Reliability Analysis Course Landing Page
      • Statistics, Hypothesis Testing, & Regression Modeling Course Landing Page
      • Measurement System Assessment Course Landing Page
      • SPC & Process Capability Course Landing Page
      • Design of Experiments Course Landing Page
    • The Manufacturing Academy Courses
      • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Statistics
      • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
      • Quality Engineering Statistics
      • FMEA in Practice
      • Process Capability Analysis course
      • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
      • Return on Investment online course
    • Industrial Metallurgist Courses
    • FMEA courses Powered by The Luminous Group
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • How to be an Online Student
    • Quondam Courses
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
  • Barringer Process Reliability Introduction Course Landing Page
  • Upcoming Live Events
You are here: Home / Archives for Articles / NoMTBF

NoMTBF

A series of articles devoted to the eradication of the misuse of MTBF.

ISSN 2168-4375

Plus, we explore other commonly misused or misunderstood reliability-related topics and what one should do instead. A little understanding will help you get better results with your efforts.

Note: This is a reposting with editing, updating, etc. of the articles that first appeared at NoMTBF.com.

by Fred Schenkelberg 2 Comments

Parts Count Variation

Parts Count Variation

Just a short post to point to a paper on the accuracy of part count prediction techniques. A few years ago, I recalled seeing a paper that studied the difference between various parts count methods and actual results.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Parts count prediction

by Kirk Gray 6 Comments

No Evidence of Correlation: Field failures and Traditional Reliability Engineering

No Evidence of Correlation: Field failures and Traditional Reliability Engineering

Historically, Reliability Engineering of Electronics has been dominated by the belief that 1) The life or percentage of complex hardware failures that occur over time can be estimated, predicted, or modeled, and 2) the Reliability of electronic systems can be calculated or estimated through statistical and probabilistic methods to improve hardware reliability.  The amazing thing about this is that during the many decades that reliability

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Field data analysis, Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT)

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

Graphical Analysis of Repair Data

Graphical Analysis of Repair Data

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…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Data analysis

by Pete Stuart Leave a Comment

Shaping Organizational Behavior

Shaping Organizational Behavior

When conducting a Human Reliability Assessment (HRA), we use the terminology errors of commission or errors of omission. It behooves every professional to question why we focus on one metric in preference to all others in an objective and constructive manner in order to discern whether we are exposing our organization to errors of professional omission or commission. The other conclusion is that we are doing the right thing and this is also an empowering piece of knowledge.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Decision making, Metrics, Value

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

What Should We Use Instead of MTBF?

What Should We Use Instead of MTBF?

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?

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Metrics

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

Use the Right Fit

Use the Right Fit

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.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Regression analysis (Weibull analysis)

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

The Language We Use Matters

The Language We Use Matters

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…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by Fred Schenkelberg 4 Comments

Do Not Want Equipment Failures

Do Not Want Equipment Failures

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…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

MTBF free Availability

MTBF free Availability

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…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

Is MTBF a True, Beneficial, and Timely Metric

Is MTBF a True, Beneficial, and Timely Metric

How Good is MTBF as a Metric?

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…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by Fred Schenkelberg 10 Comments

First Impressions

First Impressions

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…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by Fred Schenkelberg Leave a Comment

Time to Update the Reliability Metric Book

Time to Update the Reliability Metric Book

Let’s think of this as a crowdsourced project. The first version of this book is a compilation of NoMTBF.com articles. It lays out why we do not want to use MTBF and what to do instead (to some extent).

With your input on success stories, how to make progress using better metrics, and input of examples, stories, case studies, etc., the next version of the book will be much better and much more practical.
[Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by nomtbf Leave a Comment

A Series of Unfortunate MTBF Assumptions

A Series of Unfortunate MTBF Assumptions

A Series of Unfortunate MTBF Assumptions

The calculation of MTBF results in a larger number if we make a series of MTBF assumptions. We just need more time in the operating hours and fewer failures in the count of failures.

While we really want to understand the reliability performance of field units, we often make a series of small assumptions that impact the accuracy of MTBF estimates.

Here are just a few of these MTBF assumptions that I’ve seen and in some cases nearly all of them with one team. Reliability data has useful information is we gather and treat it well.  [Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

by nomtbf Leave a Comment

Math, Statistics, and Engineering

Math, Statistics, and Engineering

14586673050_b71972cc74_m_dMath, Statistics, and Engineering

In college, Mechanics was a required class from the civil engineering department. This included differential equation.

Luckily for me, I also enjoyed a required course called analytical mechanics for my physics degree. This included using Lagrange and Hamiltonian equations to derived a wide range of formulas to solve mechanisms problems.

In the civil engineering course, the professor did the derivation as the course lectures, then expected us to use the right formula to solve a problem. He even gave us a ‘cheat sheet’ with an assortment of derived equations. We just had to identify which equation to use for a particular problem and ‘plug-and-chug’ or just work out the math. It was boring. [Read more…]

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Statistics concepts

by nomtbf Leave a Comment

Are the Measures Failure Rate and Probability of Failure Different?

Are the Measures Failure Rate and Probability of Failure Different?

Old machinery enjoyed a failure rate, which one though?Are the Measures Failure Rate and Probability of Failure Different?

Failure rate and probability are similar. They are slightly different, too.

One of the problems with reliability engineering is so many terms and concepts are not commonly understood.

Reliability, for example, is commonly defined as dependable, trustworthy, as in you can count on him to bring the bagels. Whereas, reliability engineers define reliability as the probability of successful operation/function within in a specific environment over a defined duration.

The same for failure rate and probability of failure. We often have specific data-driven or business-related goals behind the terms. Others do not.
If we do not state over which time period either term applies, that is left to the imagination of the listener. Which is rarely good.

Failure Rate Definition

There at least two failure rates that we may encounter: the instantaneous failure rate and the average failure rate. The trouble starts when you ask for and are asked about an item’s failure rate. Which failure rate are you both talking about?

The instantaneous failure rate is also known as the hazard rate h(t)

$latex \displaystyle&s=3 h\left( t \right)=\frac{f\left( t \right)}{R\left( t \right)}$

Where f(t) is the probability density function and R(t) is the relaibilit function with is one minus the cumulative distribution function. The hazard rate, failure rate, or instantaneous failure rate is the failures per unit time when the time interval is very small at some point in time, t. Thus, if a unit is operating for a year, this calculation would provide the chance of failure in the next instant of time.

This is not useful for the calculation of the number of failures over that year, only the chance of a failure in the next moment.

The probability density function provides the fraction failure over an interval of time. As with a count of failures per month, a histogram of the count of failure per month would roughly describe a PDF, or f(t). The curve described for each point in time traces the value of the individual points in time instantaneous failure rate.

Sometimes, we are interested in the average failure rate, AFR. Where the AFR over a time interval, t1 to t2, is found by integrating the instantaneous failure rate over the interval and divide by t2 – t1. When we set t1 to 0, we have

$latex \displaystyle&s=3 AFR\left( T \right)=\frac{H\left( T \right)}{T}=\frac{-\ln R\left( T \right)}{T}$

Where H(T) is the integral of the hazard rate, h(t) from time zero to time T,
T is the time of interest which define a time period from zero to T,
And, R(T) is the reliability function or probability of successful operation from time zero to T.

A very common understanding of the rate of failure is the calculation of the count of failures over some time period divided by the number of hours of operation. This results in the fraction expected to fail on average per hour. I’m not sure which definition of failure rate above this fits, and yet find this is how most think of failure rate.

If we have 1,000 resistors that each operate for 1,000 hours, and then a failure occurs, we have 1 / (1,000 x 1,000 ) = 0.000001 failures per hour.

Let’s save the discussion about the many ways to report failure rates, AFR (two methods, at least), FIT, PPM/K, etc.

Probability of Failure Definition

I thought the definition of failure rate would be straightforward until I went looking for a definition. It is with trepidation that I start this section on the probability of failure definition.

To my surprise it is actually rather simple, the common definition both in common use and mathematically are the same. There are two equivalent ways to phrase the definition:

  1. The probability or chance that a unit drawn at random from the population will fail by time t.
  2. The proportion or fraction of all units in the population that fail by time t.

We can talk about individual items or all of them concerning the probability of failure. If we have a 1 in 100 chance of failure over a year, then that means we have about a 1% chance that the unit we’re using will fail before the end of the year. Or it means if we have 100 units placed into operation, we would expect one of them to fail by the end of the year.

The probability of failure for a segment of time is defined by the cumulative distribution function or CDF.

When to Use Failure Rate or Probability of Failure

This depends on the situation. Are you talking about the chance to failure in the next instant or the chance of failing over a time interval? Use failure rate for the former, and probability of failure for the latter.

In either case, be clear with your audience which definition (and assumptions) you are using. If you know of other failure rate or probability of failure definition, or if you know of a great way to keep all these definitions clearly sorted, please leave a comment below.

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF Tagged With: Failure Rate

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Next Page »
The NoMTBF logo

Devoted to the eradication of the misuse of MTBF.

Photo of Fred SchenkelbergArticles by Fred Schenkelberg and guest authors

in the NoMTBF article series

Recent Posts

  • Leadership Values in Maintenance and Operations
  • Today’s Gremlin – It’ll never work here
  • How a Mission Statement Drives Behavioral Change in Organizations
  • Gremlins today
  • The Power of Vision in Leadership and Organizational Success

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

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy