RAMS 2013 Tutorial Effective Reliability Traits and Management
3 likes995 views
The document outlines key traits and management strategies for effective reliability programs, emphasizing the importance of goal setting and the implementation of reliability engineering within organizations. It discusses methods for achieving product reliability, such as building, testing, and fixing designs, along with the use of analytical approaches and gap analysis. The text also emphasizes the need for clearly defined reliability goals that align with customer expectations and overall business objectives.
![Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary
A reliability goal includes each of the four
elements of the reliability definition.
Intended function
Environment (including use profile)
Duration
Probability of success
[Customer expectations]
2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 42](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/rams2013tut21-130101173504-phpapp02/85/RAMS-2013-Tutorial-Effective-Reliability-Traits-and-Management-42-320.jpg)
RAMS 2013 Tutorial Effective Reliability Traits and Management
- 1. Effective Reliability Program Traits and Management Fred Schenkelberg Ops A La Carte, LLC
- 2. Reliability Engineering Management Fred Schenkelberg Senior Reliability Consultant Ops A La Carte, LLC (408) 710-8248 [email protected] 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 2
- 3. Tutorial Objectives To outline the key traits for the effective management of a reliability program. To make you think about how to implement reliability engineering within an organization. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 3
- 4. Upstairs/Downstairs 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 4
- 5. HP‟s Design for Reliability Story Which activities have impact?
- 6. DFR Survey SURVEY CHECKLIST Scoring: 4 = 100%, top priority Engineering: 3 = >75, use expected Documented design cycle 2 = 25 - 75%, variable use Reliability goal budgeting 1 = <25%, occasional use Priority of reliability improvement 0 = not done or discontinued DFR training programs Management: Preferred technology program Goal setting for division Component qualification testing Priority of Quality & Reliab. OEM selection & qualif. Testing Mgmnt attention & follow up Physical failure analysis Root cause analysis Manufacturing: Statistical engineering experiments Design for Manufacturability Design & stress derating rules Priority of Q & R goals Design reviews & checking Ownership of Q & R goals Failure rate estimation Quality training programs Thermal design & measurements SPC & SQC use Worst case analysis Internal process audits Failure Modes & Effects Analysis Supplier process audits Environmental (margin) testing Incoming inspection Highly Accel. Stress Testing Product burn-in Design defect tracking Defect Tracking Lessons-learned database Corrective action 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 6
- 7. Results widespread use environmental test manual product lifecycle range of use module goal setting derating rules limited use DFR training physics of failure analysis 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 7
- 8. Findings ODM concerns how to convey needs and get reliable products? time to market priority urgent versus important management structures many ways to organize roles mature products & scores when only select tools apply 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 8
- 9. Observations best practices worst practices goal setting repair & warranty prediction invisible statistics lessons learned capture golden nuggets single owner of product first look process reliability multiple defect tracking systems 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 9
- 10. QUESTIONS? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 10
- 11. Reliability Philosophies Two fundamental methods to achieving high product reliability
- 12. Build, Test, Fix In any design there are a finite number of flaws. If we find them, we can remove the flaw. Rapid prototyping HALT Large field trials or „beta‟ testing Reliability growth modeling 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 12
- 13. Analytical Approach Develop goals Model expected failure mechanisms Conduct accelerated life tests Conduct reliability demonstration tests Routinely update system level model Balance of simulation/testing to increase ability of reliability model to predict field performance. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 13
- 14. Issues with each approach Build, Test, Fix Analytical Uncertain if design is good Fix mostly known flaws enough ALT‟s take too long Limited prototypes means RDT‟s take even longer limited flaws discovered Models have large Unable to plan for warranty uncertainty with new or field service technology and environments 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 14
- 15. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 15
- 16. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 16
- 17. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 17
- 18. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 18
- 19. QUESTIONS? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 19
- 20. Reliability Goal Setting Establish the target in an engineering meaningful manner
- 21. Reliability Definition Reliability is often considered quality over time Reliability is the probability of a product performing its intended function over its specified period of usage, and under specified operating conditions, in a manner that meets or exceeds customer expectations. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 21
- 22. Intended Function 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 22
- 23. Environment 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 23
- 24. Duration 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 24
- 25. Probability 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 25
- 26. Reliability Goal-Setting Reliability Goals can be derived from Customer-specified or implied requirements Internally-specified or self-imposed requirements (usually based on trying to be better than previous products) Benchmarking against competition 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 26
- 27. Example Exercise Elements of Product Requirements Document Take notes to build a reliability goal statement 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 27
- 28. Goal Statement exercise In groups of two or three draft a reliability goal Note the missing information and draft questions to get the missing information This is a brand new product with no field history – how would you apportion the system goal to the various subsystems? (regulator, valve, control circuitry, and enclosure) 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 28
- 29. Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary A reliability metric is often something that organization can measure on a relatively short, periodic basis: Predicted failure rate (during design phase) Field failure rate Warranty Actual field return rate Dead on Arrival rate 29 (v5) 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 29
- 30. Fully-Stated Reliability Goals System goal at multiple points Supporting metrics during development and field Apportionment to appropriate level Provide connections to overall business plan, contracts, customer expectations, and include any assumptions concerning financials Benefit: clear target for development, vendor and production teams. 30 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 30
- 31. Reliability Goal Let‟s say we expect a t few failures in one R (t ) e year. Less than 2% ln(. 98 ) 8760 / Laboratory environ. XYZ function XYZ function for one year with 98% reliability in the lab. Assuming constant (MTBF is 433,605 hrs.) failure rate 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 31
- 32. Other Points in Time Also consider other business relevant points in time Infant mortality, out of box type failures Shipping damage Component defects, manufacturing defects Wear out related failures Bearings, connectors, solder joints, e-caps 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 32
- 33. Break Down Overall Goal Let‟s look at example A computer with a one year warranty and the business model requires less than 5% failures within the first year. A desktop business computer in office environment with 95% reliability at one year. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 33
- 34. Break Down the Goal, (continued) For simplicity consider five major elements of the computer CPU/motherboard Hard Disk Drive Power Supply Monitor Bios, firmware For starters, let‟s give each sub-system the same goal 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 34
- 35. Apportionment of Goals Computer R = 0.95 CPU HDD P/S Monitor Bios R = 0.99 R = 0.99 R = 0.99 R = 0.99 R = 0.99 Assuming failures within each sub-system are independent, the simple multiplication of the reliabilities should result in meeting the system goal 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 * 0.99 = 0.95 Given no history or vendor data – this is just a starting point. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 35
- 36. Estimate Reliability The next step is to determine the sub-system reliability. Historical data from similar products Reliability estimates/test data by vendors In house reliability testing At first estimates are crude, refine as needed to make good decisions. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 36
- 37. Apportionment of Goals Computer R = 0.95 Goals CPU HDD P/S Monitor Bios R = 0.99 R = 0.99 R = 0.99 R = 0.99 R = 0.99 Estimates CPU HDD P/S Monitor Bios R = 0.96 R = 0.98 R = 0.999 R = 0.99 R = 0.999 First pass estimates do not meet system goal. Now what? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 37
- 38. Resolving the Gap CPU goal 99% est. 96% Use the simple reliability Largest gap, lowest model to determine if estimate reliability improvements First, will the known will impact the system issues bridge the reliability. i.e. changing difference? the bios reliability form 99.9% to 99.99% will not In not enough, then use significantly alter the FMEA and HALT to system reliability result. populate Pareto of what to fix Invest in improvements that will impact the Third, validate system reliability. improvements 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 38
- 39. Resolving the Gap, (continued) HDD goal 0.99 est. 0.98 When the relationship of the failure mode and either Small gap, clear path to design or environmental resolve conditions exist we do not need FMEA or HALT – go straight to design HDD reliability and improvements. operating temperature are related. Lowering the internal temperature the Use ALT to validate the HDD experiences will model and/or design improve performance. improvements. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 39
- 40. Resolving the Gap, (continued) P/S goal 0.99 est. 0.999 For any subsystem that exceeds the reliability goal, Estimate over the goal explore potential cost Further improvement not savings by reducing the cost effective given reliability performance. minimal impact to system This is only done when there reliability. is accurate reliability estimates and significant cost Possible to reduce savings. reliability (select less expensive model) and use savings to improve CPU/motherboard. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 40
- 41. Progression of Estimates Initial Engineering Guess or Estimate Test Data Vendor Data Actual Field Data 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 41
- 42. Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary A reliability goal includes each of the four elements of the reliability definition. Intended function Environment (including use profile) Duration Probability of success [Customer expectations] 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 42
- 43. Reliability Planning Selecting the minimum set of tools to achieve the reliability goals
- 44. Planning Introduction Mil Hdbk 785 task 1 “The purpose of this task is to develop a reliability program which identifies, and ties together, all program management tasks required to accomplish program requirements.” 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 44
- 45. Fully Stated Reliability Goals System goal at multiple points Supporting metrics during development and field Apportionment to appropriate level Provide connections to overall business plan, contracts, customer expectations, and include any assumptions concerning financials Benefit: clear target for development, vendor and production teams. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 45
- 46. Medicine "The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will be forever shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon" Sir John Erichsen leading British surgeon 1837 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 46
- 47. Gap Analysis Estimate/review current reliability of system against the next project goal The difference is the gap to close That gap is what the plan needs to bridge 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 47
- 48. Path to close gap This is the „art‟ of our profession and each project needs a unique solution. Just because the plan succeeded for the last project, it may not work for the current one Timelines change Goals and risks change Business objectives and customer expectations change The organization has grown/lost capabilities 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 48
- 49. If, (what is your situation) When starting a project, consider the goals, constraints, etc. and look at the entire horizontal process. Then, Let‟s find a few options to consider 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 49
- 50. Exercise Identify a circumstance and an approach to building the reliability plan. What will be the biggest challenges to implementing the plan? Separate from the plan, what will you do as the reliability engineer do to overcome the obstacles? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 50
- 51. Close on Planning Discussion Introduction to Planning Fully stated reliability goals Constraints Timeline Prototype samples Capabilities (skills and maturity) Current state and gap to goal Paths to close the gap Investments Dual paths Tolerance for risk 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 51
- 52. Television "People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night." Darryl F. Zanuck Twentieth Century- Fox, 1946 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 52
- 53. Reliability Value How to speak in management‟s language
- 54. A Reliability Engineer‟s Use of Warranty Cost Information Fred Schenkelberg
- 55. Introduction Many (most, all?) products have a warranty Examples of how to use this information in your reliability engineering work 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 55
- 56. Electric Light “Good enough for our transatlantic friends, but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.” British Parliament report on Edison’s work 1878 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 56
- 57. Overview Warranty as a percentage of revenue. Warranty as a cost per unit. Who owns warranty? How much warranty expense is right? What is the right investment to reduce warranty? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 57
- 58. Warranty Week www.warrantyweek.com 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 58
- 59. Computers “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.” Ken Olson Digital Equipment Corp. 1977 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 59
- 60. Reliability Specifications Example Given two fan datasheets Fan A has a mean time to fail of 4645 hours Fan B has a mean time to fail of 300 hours Both same price, etc. Choose one to maximize reliability at 100 hours 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 60
- 61. Reliability Specifications Example Consulting an internal fan expert, you are advised to get more information Fan A has a Weibull time to fail shape parameter of 0.8 Fan B has a Weibull time to fail shape parameter of 3.0 1 1 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 61
- 62. Reliability Specifications Example Fan A has a scale parameter of 4100 hours Fan B has a scale parameter of 336 hours Use the Weibull Reliability function t / R (t ) e Fan A reliability at 100 hours is 0.95 Fan B reliability at 100 hours is 0.974 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 62
- 63. Reliability Specifications Example Given two fan datasheets Fan A has a mean time to fail of 4645 hours Fan B has a mean time to fail of 300 hours What about later, say 1000 hours? Fan A reliability at 1000 hours is 0.723 Fan B reliability at 1000 hours is 3.5E-12 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 63
- 64. The Telephone "That's an amazing invention, but who would ever want to use one of them?" Rutherford Hayes U.S. President, 1876 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 64
- 65. The Cost Reduction Example Given a FET that costs 10 cents, a new procurement engineer finds a new FET vendor that only charges 5 cents. Switch? What else to consider? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 65
- 66. The Cost Reduction Example Given a FET that costs 10 cents, a new procurement engineer finds a new FET vendor that only charges 5 cents. $0.05 FET has MTBF of 50,000 hours $0.10 FET has MTBF of 75,000 hours 1000 hours of operation Shipping 1000 units Cost to repair unit $250 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 66
- 67. The Cost Reduction Example Total Cost of $0.10 FET 1000 R 0 .10 1000 e 75 , 000 0 . 987 #Failed = (1-0.987) 1000 units = 13.25 Cost of Repairs = 250*13 = $3250 Total Cost = $3250+0.10*1000 = $3350 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 67
- 68. The Cost Reduction Example Total Cost of $0.05 FET 1000 R 0 .05 1000 e 50 , 000 0 . 98 #Failed = (1-0.98) 1000 units = 20 Cost of Repairs = 250*20 = $5000 Total Cost = $5000+0.05*1000 = $5050 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 68
- 69. The Cost Reduction Example Total Cost of $0.50 FET 1000 R 0 .50 1000 e 100 , 000 0 . 99 #Failed = (1-0.99) 1000 units = 10 Cost of Repairs = 250*10 = $2500 Total Cost = $2500+0.50*1000 = $3000 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 69
- 70. The Cost Reduction Example Result? FET Repair Total Cost Cost Cost $0.10 $3250 $3350 75,000 hrs $0.05 $5000 $5050 50,000 hrs $0.50 $2500 $3000 100,000hrs 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 70
- 71. Aviation "The popular mind often pictures gigantic flying machines speeding across the Atlantic and carrying innumerable passengers...it seems safe to say that such ideas are wholly visionary." Wm. Henry Pickering Harvard astronomer, 1908 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 71
- 72. Component Challenges Cost driving manufacturing to low labor cost areas of the world Pb-free causing redesign/reformulation Outsourced design and manufacturing facilities gaining “commodity‟ component selection Other than yield - who‟s watching Quality, Reliability and Warranty? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 72
- 73. Component Challenges P50 formula error example Cracked ceramic capacitors 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 73
- 74. Component Challenges Trust and verify solution Build strong, technically verifiable, language into purchase contracts Check construction and formulation on periodic basis 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 74
- 75. Nuclear Energy "Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality within 10 years." Alex Lewyt vacuum cleaner manufacturer,1955 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 75
- 76. Where to Get More Information Newsletter and seminars http://Warrantyweek.com “Warranty Cost: An Introduction” http://quanterion.com/ReliabilityQues/V3N3.html “Economics of Reliability,” Chapter 4 of Handbook of Reliability Engineering and Management, 2nd Ed by Ireson, Coombs and Moss. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 76
- 77. Reliability Engineering Value How to determine „value add‟ or ROI
- 78. “All metrics are wrong, some are useful.” 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg
- 79. value 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg
- 80. Terms Value An amount considered to be a suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return for goods or services Value Add The return or result of individual, team or product investment Value Capture Value add documentation related directly to merger Warranty Reduction Lower failure rates leading to fewer claims 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 80
- 81. How is value requested? Quarterly review: What have you done for me lately? Checkpoint meeting: Are we on track to meet goals? Budget: Which option provides best ROI? Annual review: What is your impact? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 81
- 82. current status 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg
- 83. Warranty – The Big Picture ”American manufacturers spent over $25 billion in 2004 honoring their product warranties, an increase of 4.8% from the levels seen in 2003. However, an incredible 63% of U.S.- based product manufacturers actually saw a decrease in their claims rates as a percentage of sales. Only 35% saw an increase and 2% saw no change, according to the latest statistics compiled by Warranty Week.” Eric Arnum, Warranty Week www.warrantyweek.com, May 27th, 2005 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 83
- 84. document value 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg
- 85. VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE Savings/Impact/Benefit 1. Risk / cost / warranty a. Has the work directly identified or mitigated a field related problem reduction b. If so estimate the probable cost of the field problem in $ (i.e. units affected x repair cost) c. Has the probability of field related problems been reduced? d. If so give a guide by how much and the estimated cost of avoidance (i.e. Estimate 1000 units per month failure at $50 each reduced by 5%) e. Has work provided processes which will reduce the risk of field failures in subsequent products? 2. TTM impact: a. Did work help you meet or beat your TTM goals? b. Did work identify any problems which would have impacted your TTM? c. Has the use of tools/techniques identified issues which would of impacted TTM? d. If the above are applicable please identify type of problems and estimate TTM impact in days/weeks/months e. What is the estimated cost of a delay in TTM? f. What is the opportunity in $ of additional income from an early TTM? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 85
- 86. VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE Savings/Impact/Benefit a. Did work help you accelerate or meet your Time to Volume 3. TT Volume impact: goals? b. If applicable what is the estimated $ impact of avoiding the TTV issues that were identified 4. Material costs: a. Did we avoid or save any direct product material or test equipment costs? b. If so please identify type and cost 5. TCE: a. Has the work contributed to the TCE of your product? b. If so identify how? i.e. estimated number of customer calls avoided c. If you have a TCE cost model what is the estimated $ impact of the identified improvement 6.Opportunity Cost a. If engineers from the business had been used to do this work would they have not been able do other product related work. I.e. delivered new functions? 7. Indirect Impact: a. What advantages did internal work provide over an external consultancy? (i.e. time, cost, contractual issues, Intellectual Property, response time) 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 86
- 87. “I fall back dazzled at beholding myself all rosy red, At having, I myself, caused the sun to rise” Edmund Rostand (1868-1918) 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 87
- 88. VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE Savings/Impact/Benefit 8. Engineering effort a. How long would it have taken your team to undertake the work provided. Take into account research time and whether you saved: had the skills available b. If you did not have the skills available how many people would have needed to be recruited to undertake the work? c. How long would it take for these people to become productive? d. Estimate training cost associated with new personnel 9. Misc a. Please identify any other benefits or cost savings from using our resources 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 88
- 89. “Gross national product measures neither the health of our children, the quality of their education, nor the joy of their play It measures neither the beauty of our poetry, nor the strength of our marriages. It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of our streets alike. It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our wit nor our courage, neither our compassion or our devotion to country. It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worth living, and it can tell us everything about our country except those things which make us proud to be part of it.” Robert Kennedy 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 89
- 90. Your „value case‟ Problem statement Work done to solve problem Value statement(s) 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 90
- 91. Reliability Maturity How to understand an organization‟s reliability culture
- 92. Maturity Matrix Handout Matrix Based on Quality Management Maturity Grid from Quality is Free, c 1979 by Philip B. Crosby 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 92
- 93. Measurement Categories Management Understanding and Attitude Business objectives and language Attention and investments Reliability Status Position and stature Location and influence 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 93
- 94. Measurement Categories Problem Handling Proactive or Reactive Cost of „Un‟ Reliability Understanding and influence of metrics Local budget or total product cost Feedback Process Predictions, reliability testing Failure analysis, time to detection 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 94
- 95. Measurement Categories DFR program status Exists separately or integrated Template or customized Summation of Reliability Posture How does the organization talk about reliability? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 95
- 96. Stage I Uncertainty Management – blame others Status – hidden or doesn‟t exist Problems – may have good fire fighting Cost – unknown and no influence Feedback – customer returns & complaints DFR – doesn‟t exist even with designers Summation – “Reliability must be ok, since customer‟s are buying our products.” 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 96
- 97. Stage II Awakening Management – important w/o resources Status – champion recognized Problems – organized fire fighting Cost – generally warranty only Feedback – disorganized, antidotal DFR – trying some tools Summation – “We really should make more reliable products.” 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 97
- 98. Stage III Enlightenment Management – Support and encouragement Status – Senior staff influence Problems – Systematic and reactive Cost – Starting to track cost of un-reliability Feedback – ALT and modeling, root cause DFR – program of reliability activities Summation – “We can see how these tools help our product‟s field performance.” 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 98
- 99. Stage IV Wisdom Management – Personally involved, leading Status – Senior manager, major role Problems – found and resolved quickly Cost – understanding of major drivers Feedback – selective testing in risk areas DFR – Part of products get designed Summation – “We avoid most field reliability issues” 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 99
- 100. Stage V Certainty Management – Considered core capability Status – thought leader in company Problems – Only a few issue, & expected Cost – Accurate and decreasing Feedback – Testing & field support models DFR – Normal part of company business Summation – “We do get surprised by the few field failures that occur.” 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 100
- 101. Why do we need to know Maturity? Recommendations need to match the organizations capabilities From current state build path toward the right one step at a time Value proposition for changes address management approach to reliability 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 101
- 102. How to determine maturity? Self assessment Small team from across organization Each marks blocks that describe their maturity Team determine Stage description by consensus Observation from within an organization As an individual trying to position changes Informally conduct self assessment 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 102
- 103. How to determine maturity? Assessment Interviews Conduct interviews to understand current reliability activities Review and summarize interviews Interpret results onto maturity matrix 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 103
- 104. What are your questions? 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 104
- 105. Reliability Assessment Using a survey to quickly understand the organization‟s reliability program
- 106. survey approach selecting survey topics choosing interviewees interview format hw r&d manager data collection hw r&d engineer business unit summary reliability manager immediate follow up reliability engineer analysis procurement review manufacturing key stakeholder reporting 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 106
- 107. survey form & scoring DFR Methods Survey Scoring: 4 = 100%, top priority, always done 3 = >75%, use normally, expected 2 = 25% - 75%, variable use 1 = <25%, only occasional use 0 = not done or discontinued - = not visible, no comment Management: Goal setting for division Priority of quality & reliability improvement Management attention & follow up (goal ownership) Design: Documented hardware design cycle Goal setting by product or module 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 107
- 108. design survey topics Design: Documented hardware design cycle Goal setting by product or module Priority of Q&R vs. performance, cost, schedule Design for Reliability (DFR) training Preferred technology selection/standardization Component qualification testing OEM selection & testing to equal HP requirements Fault Tree Analysis/Rel. Block Diagrams (FTA/RBD) Failure/root cause analysis Statistically-designed engineering experiments Accelerated Stress/Life Testing (ALT) Design & derating rules 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 108
- 109. design survey topics Design reviews/design rule checking Finite Element Analysis (FEA) or simulations Failure rate estimation/prediction Thermal design & measurements Design tolerance analysis Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA) Environmental (design margin) testing Highly accelerated life testing (HALT) Physics of Failure analysis Lessons-learned database Design Defect Tracking (DDT) Ownership of quality & reliability goals 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 109
- 110. manufacturing survey topics Manufacturing: Design for manufacturability (DFM) Priority of Q&R vs. schedule & cost Quality training programs Statistical Process Control (SPC/SQC) Total Quality Management (TQM) HP process audits (written reports) Vendor (& OEM) process audits, TQRDCE Incoming inspection/sampling Component burn-in Assembly-level environmental stress screening (ESS) Product-level environmental stress screening (ESS) Defect Detection & Tracking (DD&T) Corrective Action Reports Ownership of quality & reliability goals 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 110
- 111. Aircraft Company Example AC, Inc. a private jet manufacturer, develops, manufactures, sells and provides support for aircraft, throughout the intended life cycle. The product design process is dominated by the ability to meet FAA certification requirements. This product is high cost and very low volume. Handout, AC, Inc. Survey Summary Determine maturity stage and make recommendations 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 111
- 112. AC, Inc. key points MTBF metrics Excellent field data Very limited sample sizes Reactive mode to improvement activities 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 112
- 113. AC, Inc. Recommendations Use Reliability rather than MTBF. Establish fully stated reliability goal in terms of the probability of components and aircraft successfully performing as expected under stated conditions for two or more defined time periods. Reliability is a metric that does not have a dependence on a particular lifetime distribution and is intuitively interpreted by engineers correctly. Using multiple time marks, it promotes the use of lifetime distributions rather than single parameter descriptions. Once engineers are using lifetime distributions, calculating confidence intervals is a natural extension. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 113
- 114. AC, Inc. Recommendations Build and support an aircraft reliability model. Use the historical data, lifetime distributions (not MTBF), RBD (reliability block diagramming) and simple mathematics to quickly create a basic reliability model. An extension of the model would be to incorporate the various environmental factors, flight profiles, and the influence of other relevant variables on failure rates. For example, some systems experience damaging stress during takeoffs and landings, others only while in flight, some only when landing in high temperature and humidity climates. Ideally for each component the model would incorporate historical field history along with environmental and component data. Even a very simple model that enables the design and procurement teams to evaluate options is well worth the effort to build and support. Most importantly a reliability model provides feedback very quickly to the design team during the design process. 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 114
- 115. Additional Reading Practical Reliability Engineering, 4th Edition, Patrick D. T. O‟Connor, 2002 Improving Product Reliability: Strategies and Implementation, Mark A. Levin and Ted T. Kalal, 2003 Quality is Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, Philip B. Crosby, 1979 Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering, Henry Petroski, 1994 2013 RAMS – Tutorial 4A - Schenkelberg 115