effective reliability program traits and management product development (r&d), ... priority of...

8 – Schenkelberg 2011 AR&MS Tutorial Notes

Effective Reliability ProgramTraits and Management

Fred SchenkelbergOps A La Carte, LLC

2011 RAMS –Tutorial 5B – Schenkelberg

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.

3


Primary Reference

McGRAW-HILL, 1996

ISBN: 00701-275065


Reliability Engineering Management

Fred SchenkelbergSenior Reliability ConsultantOps A La Carte, LLC(408) [email protected]

2


My Background and Context

4


Additional Reading

Practical Reliability Engineering, 4th Edition, Patrick D. T. O’Connor, 2002Improving Product Reliability: Strategies and Implementation, Mark A. Levin and Ted T. Kalal, 2003Quality if Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, Philip B. Crosby, 1979Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering, Henry Petroski, 1994

6

2011 Annual RELIABILITY and MAINTAINABILITY Symposium Schenkelberg – 9

HP’s Design for Reliability Story

Which activities have impact?

7


"Based on an in-depth study of HP's most successful divisions, we discovered that as much as 25% of our manufacturing assetswere tied up in reacting to quality problems!

"Clearly, a bold approach was needed to con-vince people that a problem existed and to fully engage the entire organization in solving it."

The Situation

9


Dick Moss retired from HP in February 1999, as the Corporate Product Reliability Manager and winner of the CEO’s Customer Satisfaction Award. He worked at HP 39 years, the first 15 in new product development (R&D), and the last 24 in hardware quality & reliability. During that time, he presented more than 700 technical seminars to over 35,000 HP employees worldwide. He wrote or edited parts of 4 books and published numerous papers. He holds a BSEE from Princeton and an MSEE from Stanford, and has one patent.

11


GOOD

FAST

CHEAP

PICK ANY TWO!

(THE OLD WAY)

Product Development

8


"The proper place to start, we concluded,was with a startling goal - one that wouldget attention. The goal we chose was a tenfold reduction in the failure rates ofour products during the 1980's."

John Young HP CEO

The 10X Challenge

10


FISCAL YEAR

Actual 10X Goal

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1989 1990

0.126 ACTUAL (8X)0.100 GOAL (10X)

FAILURE RATE

1988

(Normalized)

The 10X Challenge Results

12



(ACTUAL vs PROJECTED @ 1980 RATE)1980 RATE

ANNUAL

FISCAL YEAR

0

$100M

$200M

$300M

FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90

ACTUAL

10 YR SAVINGS$808 MILLION

EXPENSE

ACTUAL WTY COST

PROJECTED COST

Warranty Savings During 10X

13


Thoughts or Questions

what are your questions?

• …your comments?

15


Results

widespread useenvironmental test manualproduct lifecycle

range of usemodule goal settingderating rules

limited useDFR trainingphysics of failure analysis

17


HOW'D WE DO THAT?

Management Leadership & Involvement

Lengthen Warranty Period

Find & Share Best Practices

Commitment

Design for Reliability

14


SURVEY CHECKLISTScoring:4 = 100%, top priority3 = >75, use expected2 = 25 - 75%, variable use1 = <25%, occasional use0 = not done or discontinued

Management:Goal setting for divisionPriority of Quality & ReliabilityManagement attention & follow up

Manufacturing:Design for ManufacturabilityPriority of Q & R goalsOwnership of Q & R goalsQuality training programsSPC & SQC useInternal & Supplier process auditsIncoming inspectionProduct burn-inDefect Tracking Corrective action

Engineering:Documented design cycleReliability goal budgetingPriority of reliability improvementDFR training programsPreferred technology programComponent qualification testingOEM selection & qualification TestingPhysical failure analysisRoot cause analysisStatistical engineering experimentsDesign & stress derating rulesDesign reviews & checkingFailure rate estimationThermal design & measurementsWorst case analysisFailure Modes & Effects AnalysisEnvironmental (margin) testingHighly Accelerated Stress TestingDesign defect trackingLessons-learned database

DFR Survey

16


FindingsODM concerns

how to convey needs and get reliable products?

time to market priorityurgent versus important

management structuresmany ways to organize roles

mature products & scoreswhen only select tools apply

18



Observations

best practicesgoal settingpredictionstatisticsgolden nuggetsfirst look process

worst practicesrepair & warranty invisiblelessons learned capturesingle owner of product reliabilitymultiple defect tracking systems

19

Reliability Goal Setting

Establish the target in an engineering meaningful manner

21


Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary

Reliability Goals & Metrics tie together all stages of the product life cycle. Well crafted goals provide the target for the business to achieve, they set the direction.

Metrics provide the milestones, the “are we there, yet”, the feedback all elements of the organization needs to stay on track toward the goals.

23

2011 RAMS –Tutorial 5B – Schenkelberg 20

QUESTIONS?


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.

22



A reliability goal includes each of the four elements of the reliability definition.

Intended functionEnvironment (including use profile)DurationProbability of success[Customer expectations]

24




A reliability metric is often something that organization can measure on a relatively short periodic basis.

Predicted failure rate (during design phase)Field failure rateWarrantyActual field return rateDead on Arrival rate

25


Example Exercise

Elements of Product Requirements Document

Take notes to build a reliability goal statement

27


PRD Background

The device includes a built in regulator, valve, control circuitry, and enclosure. The device will be designed to attach to a standard compressed gas cylinder.The industrial design of the device allows the user a simple method of attachment to the cylinder and easy access to all controls, batteries, and outlet port.A high-valuation, portable, 2 year life, dependable product will be targeted, while minimizing cost of goods to permit market flexibility.

29


Reliability Goal-Setting

Reliability Goals can be derived fromCustomer-specified or implied requirementsInternally-specified or self-imposed requirements (usually based on trying to be better than previous products)Benchmarking against competition

26


PRD ScopeThis document defines the product specification

for the Device A (Dev A). This specification includes a description of all electrical, mechanical, and functional aspects of the DevA. It is intended to define the characteristics of the Dev A, but is not intended to describe a specific design implementation, which is covered in other documents. Unless otherwise specified, the tolerance of the nominal values specified herein will be taken as ± 20% at an ambient temperature of 25°C.

Dev A provides demand-only flow regulation in order to conserve gas.

28


PRD Reliability Section

Warranty PeriodThe Warranty period will be decided by Marketing

prior to release. The MRD currently states a 1 year warranty, however, for design purposes a two year warranty period shall be assumed.(PRD074)Reliability Over Warranty Period

The project goal is less than 2% at the end of first years production.

30



PRD Reliability Section

MaintainabilityThe Dev A is intended to be serviced and repaired

by Company A authorized service centers or authorized health care providers. Useful Life

The useful design life of the Dev A shall be 6,000 hours based on 4 years at 4 hours use per day.(PRD077)

31


PRD Environment SectionStorage EnvironmentThese devices shall perform to all specifications after one hour at operating environment conditions after storage at the following environmental conditions :(PRD079)Temperature: -20 to 60 °CRelative Humidity: 15 to 95% non-condensingThe Dev A and all package contents shall be stored in a sealed plastic bag away from oil and grease contaminates.(PRD080)

33



A reliability metric is often something that organization can measure on a relatively short, periodic basis:

Predicted failure rate (during design phase)Field failure rateWarrantyActual field return rateDead on Arrival rate

35


PRD Environment Section

Operating EnvironmentThese devices shall meet all performance

specifications defined herein while subject to the following environmental conditions unless otherwise specified:(PRD078)

Temperature: 5 to 40°CRelative Humidity: 15 to 95% non-condensing Atmospheric Pressure: 76.7 to 102 kPaDC Supply Voltage: 4.5 to 6.5 VDC

32


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)

34


Fully-Stated Reliability Goals

System goal at multiple pointsSupporting metrics during development and fieldApportionment 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.

36



Reliability Goal

Let’s say we expect a few failures in one year.Less than 2%Laboratory environ.XYZ function

Assuming constant failure rate

XYZ function for one year with 98% reliability in the lab.(MTBF is 433,605 hrs.)

θ

θ

/8760)98ln(.)(

−==

− tetR

37


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.

39


Apportionment of GoalsComputerR = 0.95

P/SR = 0.99

CPUR = 0.99

HDDR = 0.99

MonitorR = 0.99

BiosR = 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.41


Other Points in Time

Also consider other business relevant points in time

Infant mortality, out of box type failuresShipping damageComponent defects, manufacturing defects

Wear out related failuresBearings, connectors, solder joints, e-caps

38


Break Down the Goal, (continued)

For simplicity consider five major elements of the computer

CPU/motherboardHard Disk DrivePower SupplyMonitorBios, firmware

For starters, let’s give each sub-system the same goal

40


Estimate Reliability

The next step is to determine the sub-system reliability.

Historical data from similar productsReliability estimates/test data by vendorsIn house reliability testing

At first estimates are crude, refine as needed to make good decisions.

42



Apportionment of Goals

ComputerR = 0.95

P/SR = 0.99

CPUR = 0.99

HDDR = 0.99

MonitorR = 0.99

BiosR = 0.99

P/SR = 0.999

CPUR = 0.96

HDDR = 0.98

MonitorR = 0.99

BiosR = 0.999

Goals

Estimates

First pass estimates do not meet system goal. Now what?

43


Resolving the Gap, (continued)

HDD goal 0.99 est. 0.98

Small gap, clear path to resolve

HDD reliability and operating temperature are related. Lowering the internal temperature the HDD experiences will improve performance.

When the relationship of the failure mode and either design or environmental conditions exist we do not need FMEA or HALT – go straight to design improvements.

Use ALT to validate the model and/or design improvements.

45


Progression of Estimates

Initi

al E

ngin

eerin

g G

uess

or E

stim

ate

Vend

or D

ata

Test

Dat

a

Actual FieldData

47


Resolving the GapCPU goal 99% est. 96%

Largest gap, lowest estimate

First, will the known issues bridge the difference?

If not enough, then use FMEA and HALT to populate Pareto of what to fix

Third, validate improvements

Use the simple reliability model to determine if reliability improvements will impact the system reliability. i.e. changing the bios reliability form 99.9% to 99.99% will not significantly alter the system reliability result.

Invest in improvements that will impact the system reliability.

44


Resolving the Gap, (continued)

P/S goal 0.99 est. 0.999Estimate over the goalFurther improvement not cost effective given minimal impact to system reliability.Possible to reduce reliability (select less expensive model) and use savings to improve CPU/motherboard.

For any subsystem that exceeds the reliability goal, explore potential cost savings by reducing the reliability performance.This is only done when there is accurate reliability estimates and significant cost savings.

46


Microsoft ModelProposed Model: Get feedback to the design and manufacturing team that permits visibility of the reliability gap. Permit comparison to goal.

Microsoft Model: Not estimating or measuring the reliability during design is something I call the Microsoft model. Just ship it, the customers will tell you what needs improvement.

Don’t try the Microsoft Model!(it works for them but probably won’t work for you)

48




A reliability goal includes each of the four elements of the reliability definition.

Intended functionEnvironment (including use profile)DurationProbability of success[Customer expectations]

49


Build, Test, Fix

In any design there are a finite number of flaws.If we find them, we can remove the flaw.

Rapid prototypingHALTLarge field trials or ‘beta’ testingReliability growth modeling

51


Issues with each approach

Build, Test, FixUncertain if design is good enoughLimited prototypes means limited flaws discoveredUnable to plan for warranty or field service

AnalyticalFix mostly known flawsALT’s take too longRDT’s take even longerModels have large uncertainty with new technology and environments

53

Reliability Philosophies

Two fundamental methods to achieving high product reliability

50


Analytical Approach

Develop goalsModel expected failure mechanismsConduct accelerated life testsConduct reliability demonstration testsRoutinely update system level model

Balance of simulation/testing to increase ability of reliability model to predict field performance.

52


Balanced approach

GoalPlan

FMEA PredictionHALT RDT/ALT

VerificationReview

54



Balanced approach

GoalPlan


VerificationReview

55


Balanced approach

GoalPlan


VerificationReview

57


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.”

59


Balanced approach

GoalPlan


VerificationReview

56

Reliability Planning

Selecting the minimum set of tools to achieve the reliability goals

58


Fully Stated Reliability Goals

System goal at multiple pointsSupporting metrics during development and fieldApportionment 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.

60



Medicine

"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will be forever shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon"

Sir John Erichsenleading British surgeon, 1837

61


Path to close gapThis 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 changeGoals and risks changeBusiness objectives and customer expectations changeThe organization has grown/lost capabilities

63


If, large gap and clear Parato

Then,Same as small gap, generallyEarly step is to estimate ability to close gap with reasonable business riskIf there is doubt on validity of issues to resolve, consider HALT to uncover possible new issues

65


Gap Analysis

Estimate/review current reliability of system against the next project goalThe difference is the gap to close

That gap is what the plan needs to bridge

62


If, small gap and clear Parato

Then,Select issues on Parato from past products that have the easiest cost, timeline, risk.Engineering doesn’t need HALT or FMEA to identify or prioritize issues to resolveAssumes a system/sub-system reliability model, even as simple as Parato based on failure rates.Engineers may need ALT to verify solution assumptions

64


If, new features, new market

Then,Increase use of HALT, including on competitor’s products if possibleIncrease use of environmental testing (HALT if able to afford samples and testing facilitates). Find margins related to new market environment.Use reliability growth modeling to determine if plan of record is able to meet goals

66



If, reliant on vendor’s failure analysis

Then,Consider building internal or third party failure analysis and component expertiseAccelerate time to detection of vendor issues

67


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?

69


Television

"People will soon get tired of staring at aplywood box every night."

Darryl F. ZanuckTwentieth Century-Fox, 1946

71


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

68


Close on Planning DiscussionIntroduction to PlanningFully stated reliability goalsConstraints

TimelinePrototype samplesCapabilities (skills and maturity)

Current state and gap to goalPaths to close the gap

InvestmentsDual pathsTolerance for risk

70

Reliability Value

How to speak in management’s language

72


A Reliability Engineer’s Use of Warranty Cost Information

Fred Schenkelberg

73


Electric Light

“Good enough for our transatlantic friends, but unworthy of the attention of practical or scientific men.”

British Parliament report on Edison’s work1878

75


Warranty Week

www.warrantyweek.com

77


Introduction

Many (most, all?) products have a warranty

Examples of how to use this information in your reliability engineering work

74


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?

76


Computers

“There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.”

Ken OlsonDigital Equipment Corp. 1977

78



Reliability Specifications Example

Given two fan datasheets

Fan A has a mean time to fail of 4645 hoursFan B has a mean time to fail of 300 hours

Both same price, etc.

Choose one to maximize reliability at 100 hours

79



Fan A has a scale parameter of 4100 hoursFan B has a scale parameter of 336 hours

Use the Weibull Reliability function

Fan A reliability at 100 hours is 0.95Fan B reliability at 100 hours is 0.974

( )βθ/)( tetR −=

81


The Telephone

"That's an amazing invention, but whowould ever want to use one of them?"

Rutherford HayesU.S. President, 1876

83



Consulting an internal fan expert, you are advised to get more information

Fan A has a Weibull time to fail shape parameter of 0.8Fan B has a Weibull time to fail shape parameter of 3.0

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛+Γ=β

θμ 11

80



Given two fan datasheets

Fan A has a mean time to fail of 4645 hoursFan B has a mean time to fail of 300 hours

What about later, say 1000 hours?

Fan A reliability at 1000 hours is 0.723Fan B reliability at 1000 hours is 3.5E-12

82


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?

84



The Cost Reduction ExampleGiven 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 operationShipping 1000 unitsCost to repair unit $250

85



Total Cost of $0.05 FET

#Failed = (1-0.98) 1000units = 20

Cost of Repairs = 250*20 = $5000

Total Cost = $5000+0.05*1000 = $5050

( ) 98.01000 000,501000

05.0 ==⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎝

⎛−

eR

87


The Cost Reduction ExampleResult?

FET Cost Repair Cost Total Cost

$0.10 $325075,000 hrs

$3350

$0.05 $500050,000 hrs

$5050

$0.50 $2500100,000 hrs

$3000

89




#Failed = (1-0.987) 1000units = 13.25


Total Cost = $3250 + 0.10*1000 = $3350

( ) 987.01000 000,751000

10.0 ==⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎝

⎛−

eR

86




#Failed = (1-0.99) 1000units = 10


Total Cost = $2500+0.50*1000 = $3000

( ) 99.01000 000,1001000

50.0 ==⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎝

⎛−

eR

88


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 PickeringHarvard astronomer, 1908

90



Component Challenges

Cost driving manufacturing to low labor cost areas of the worldPb-free causing redesign/reformulationOutsourced design and manufacturing facilities gaining “commodity’ component selection

Other than yield - who’s watching Quality, Reliability and Warranty?

91



Trust and verify solution

Build strong, technically verifiable, language into purchase contracts

Check construction and formulation on periodic basis

93


Where to Get More Information

Newsletter and seminarshttp://Warrantyweek.com

“Warranty Cost: An Introduction”http://quanterion.com/ReliabilityQues/V3N3.html

“Economics of Reliability,” Chapter 4 ofHandbook of Reliability Engineering and Management, 2nd Ed by Ireson, Coombs and Moss.

95



P50 formula error example

Cracked ceramic capacitors

92


Nuclear Energy

"Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners willprobably be a reality within 10 years."

Alex Lewyt vacuum cleaner manufacturer, 1955

94

Reliability Engineering ValueHow to determine ‘value add’ or ROI

96



“All metrics are wrong, some are useful.”

97


TermsValue

An amount considered to be a suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return for goods or services

Value AddThe return or result of individual, team or product investment

Value CaptureValue add documentation related directly to merger

Warranty ReductionLower failure rates leading to fewer claims

99


current status

101


value

98


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?

100


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 Weekwww.warrantyweek.com, May 27th, 2005

102



document value

103


VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRESavings/Impact/Benefit

3. TT Volume impact:

a. Did work help you accelerate or meet your Time to Volume 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 avoidedc. 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)

105


VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE

Savings/Impact/Benefit

8. Engineering effort saved:

a. How long would it have taken your team to undertake the work provided. Take into account research time and whether you 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

107


VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE

Savings/Impact/Benefit

1. Risk / cost / warranty reduction

a. Has the work directly identified or mitigated a field related problem

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?

104


“I fall back dazzled at beholding myself all rosy red, at having, I myself, caused the sun to rise

Edmund Rostand (1868-1918)

106


“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 Kennedy108



Your ‘value case’

Problem statement

Work done to solve problem

Value statement(s)

109


Maturity Matrix

Handout Matrix

Based on Quality Management Maturity Grid from Quality is Free, c 1979 by Philip B. Crosby

111


Measurement CategoriesProblem Handling

Proactive or Reactive

Cost of ‘Un’ ReliabilityUnderstanding and influence of metricsLocal budget or total product cost

Feedback ProcessPredictions, reliability testingFailure analysis, time to detection

113

Reliability Maturity

How to understand an organization’s reliability culture

110


Measurement Categories

Management Understanding and AttitudeBusiness objectives and languageAttention and investments

Reliability StatusPosition and statureLocation and influence

112


Measurement Categories

DFR program statusExists separately or integratedTemplate or customized

Summation of Reliability PostureHow does the organization talk about reliability?

114



Stage I Uncertainty

Management – blame othersStatus – hidden or doesn’t existProblems – may have good fire fightingCost – unknown and no influenceFeedback – customer returns & complaintsDFR – doesn’t exist even with designers

Summation – “Reliability must be ok, since customer’s are buying our products.”

115


Stage III Enlightenment

Management – Support and encouragementStatus – Senior staff influenceProblems – Systematic and reactiveCost – Starting to track cost of un-reliabilityFeedback – ALT and modeling, root causeDFR – program of reliability activities

Summation – “We can see how these tools help our product’s field performance.”

117


Stage V Certainty

Management – Considered core capabilityStatus – thought leader in companyProblems – Only a few issue, & expectedCost – Accurate and decreasingFeedback – Testing & field support modelsDFR – Normal part of company business

Summation – “We do get surprised by the few field failures that occur.”

119


Stage II Awakening

Management – important w/o resourcesStatus – champion recognizedProblems – organized fire fightingCost – generally warranty onlyFeedback – disorganized, antidotalDFR – trying some tools

Summation – “We really should make more reliable products.”

116


Stage IV Wisdom

Management – Personally involved, leadingStatus – Senior manager, major roleProblems – found and resolved quicklyCost – understanding of major driversFeedback – selective testing in risk areasDFR – Part of products get designed

Summation – “We avoid most field reliability issues”

118


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

120



How to determine maturity?

Self assessmentSmall team from across organizationEach marks blocks that describe their maturityTeam determine Stage description by consensus

Observation from within an organizationAs an individual trying to position changesInformally conduct self assessment

121


What are your questions?

123


survey approach

selecting survey topicsinterview formatdata collectionbusiness unit summaryimmediate follow upanalysisreviewkey stakeholder reporting

choosing intervieweeshw r&d managerhw r&d engineerreliability managerreliability engineerprocurementmanufacturing

125


How to determine maturity?

Assessment InterviewsConduct interviews to understand current reliability activitiesReview and summarize interviewsInterpret results onto maturity matrix

122

Reliability Assessment

Using a survey to quickly understand the organization’s reliability program

124


Survey Form & ScoringDFR Methods Survey

Scoring: 4 = 100%, top priority, always done3 = >75%, use normally, expected2 = 25% - 75%, variable use1 = <25%, only occasional use0 = not done or discontinued- = not visible, no comment

Management:Goal setting for divisionPriority of quality & reliability improvementManagement attention & follow up (goal ownership)

Design:Documented hardware design cycleGoal setting by product or module

126



Design Survey TopicsDesign:

Documented hardware design cycleGoal setting by product or modulePriority of Q&R vs performance, cost, scheduleDesign for Reliability (DFR) trainingPreferred technology selection/standardizationComponent qualification testingOEM selection & testing to equal HP requirementsFault Tree Analysis/Rel. Block Diagrams (FTA/RBD)Failure/root cause analysisStatistically-designed engineering experimentsAccelerated Stress/Life Testing (ALT)Design & derating rules

127


Manufacturing Survey TopicsManufacturing:

Design for manufacturability (DFM)Priority of Q&R vs schedule & costQuality training programsStatistical Process Control (SPC/SQC)Total Quality Management (TQM)HP process audits (written reports)Vendor (& OEM) process audits, TQRDCEIncoming inspection/samplingComponent burn-inAssembly- & product-level environmental stress screening (ESS)Defect Detection & Tracking (DD&T)Corrective Action ReportsOwnership of quality & reliability goals

129


AC, Inc. key points

MTBF metricsExcellent field dataVery limited sample sizesReactive mode to improvement activities

131


Design Survey Topics

Design reviews/design rule checkingFinite Element Analysis (FEA) or simulationsFailure rate estimation/predictionThermal design & measurementsDesign tolerance analysisFailure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA)Environmental (design margin) testingHighly accelerated life testing (HALT)Physics of Failure analysisLessons-learned databaseDesign Defect Tracking (DDT)

Ownership of quality & reliability goals

128


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 SummaryDetermine maturity stage and make recommendations

130


AC, Inc. RecommendationsUse Reliability rather than MTBUR. 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.

132



AC, Inc. RecommendationsBuild and support an aircraft reliability model. Use the historical data, lifetime distributions (not MTBUR), 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.

133


AC, Inc. Recommendations

Handout, AC, Inc. recommendations and matrix results

Basic idea is to make the reliability engineer more valuable to the design team by building an aircraft reliability model.

Value proposition: better design tradeoffs that include reliability.

134

effective reliability program traits and management product development (r&d), ... priority of...

Documents