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 / Articles / The Language We Use Matters

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.

Simply saying ‘reliability’ instead of ‘MTBF’ would convey what we really mean. If the message requires specific values, instead of ’50,000 hour MTBF’, say ’98% reliable over two years’. And, if you absolutely have to use MTBF, always add the duration over which the failure rate (1/MTBF) is relevant.

MTBF Acknowledged as Misunderstood

During a panel at RAMS, a few panelists spoke of the state of various reliability-related international standards and mentioned the continued use of MTBF. When challenged, which I’ve done on this topic, they defended the continued use of MTBF due to its widespread use. They also acknowledged the common misunderstanding and misuse of MTBF and agreed that using ‘reliability’ is more meaningful. Yet, they contended that the overall widespread use of MTBF warranted the continued use in the standard’s language.

I contend that the standards establish and reinforce the language that we use as a profession because language matters. We should expect the language of any standards to be clear and easy to understand. While MTBF, in itself, is a perfectly meaningful expression, when used correctly, it does not currently communicate the intended message. Changing the term ‘MTBF’ to ‘Reliability’ in standards would encourage our profession and those that rely on reliability standards to elevate the discussion, to speak and write clearly, and to avoid the communication errors surrounding MTBF.

Reliability-related standards further propagate the acknowledged widespread misunderstanding by the repeated appearance of standards. Let’s change that.

Objection and Objective

One objection is the ‘we’ve always done it that way’ type argument. This is related to the early medical profession’s use of Latin to cloak the professional in an aura of professionalism (educated elite members reinforced with arcane language). A major objective of the reliability profession is to enable the design and management teams to make good decisions while considering the full impact of reliability. Using ‘arcane’ or difficult-to-understand language does not serve our profession or provide a service to the design and management teams.

We are already facing the daunting task of clearly explaining the range of statistical tools we routinely use to solve problems. Adding the term ‘convincing’ will help in that area. Let’s continue to improve our collective language by avoiding the use of MTBF also.

Filed Under: Articles, NoMTBF

About Fred Schenkelberg

I am the reliability expert at FMS Reliability, a reliability engineering and management consulting firm I founded in 2004. I left Hewlett Packard (HP)’s Reliability Team, where I helped create a culture of reliability across the corporation, to assist other organizations.

« Daffodils explain the difference between Preventive Maintenance Optimization (PMO) and RCM…
Boeing is Steering Harder into its Spiral of Death »

Comments

  1. Larry George says

    March 22, 2024 at 9:59 AM

    Thanks. Your article makes it apparent (at least to me) that MTBF is a lie for most products or parts. This is because MTBF requires extrapolation of reliability or failure rate function beyond observed lifetimes: unless the failure rate function is constant.
    Theorem from when hell freezes over page 19, Barlow and Proschan, Reliability book, says something like: for a system with a large number of statistically independent components, with identical replacements, the times between failures will, asymptotically, as time goes to infinity, have exponential distributions with mean MTBF.
    Meanwhile, consider Credible Reliability Prediction: the prediction of new product reliability using the field reliability and failure rate function estimates of comparable parts that have already been in the field, some of which may have completed their life cycles. Designs, processes, shipping, installation, customers, and environments don’t change much.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

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

  • 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
  • 3 Types of MTBF Stories

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