reliability life cycle management - dfr solutions · 2017. 10. 8. · 2 introduction about fiducia...

1

Fiducia TGReliability Life Cycle Management (RLCM)

May 26th 2016

Jim Bartos

2

Introduction

About Fiducia TG

1. Fiducia TG is Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio USA

A. Reliability Benchmarking based on Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index (RLCMI)

B. Reliability Life Cycle Management (RLCM)

C. Reliability Methods

About Presentation

1. Review Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index for Complex Systems

2. Show Details of Reliability Life Cycle Management Index

A. Review Basic Steps of Level 3

B. Review some of the details of several steps

3

Agenda

Introduction to RLCMI and RLCM

RLCMI Details

– Reliability Planning

– Proactive Reliability

– Reliability Growth Tracking

Summary

Questions

10 min

20 min

10 min

5 min

5 min

10 min

4

Need for Reliability

A Reliability Program should encompass all the key activities needed, from

concept development through production, to deliver high value & successful

products to customers

Reliability should be managed in all life cycle phases, with a systemic

approach and throughout the Extended Enterprise

CUSTOMER PERCEIVED VALUE

SERVICE PERFORMANCE

COST OF OWNERSHIP

PRODUCT PERFORMANCE

INTANGIBLE DRIVERS

RELIABILITY

Reliability is a major driver of Customer Perceived Value

QUALITY

5

Each level represents a breakthrough in the effectiveness of the reliability process and the results achieved

Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index (RLCMI)

Is a index of different Reliability Life Cycle Management Levels (RLCM)How can RLCMI bring value to your organization and Customers? Companies who achieved higher RLCMI level experienced:

– Lower the product development cost and time to market.

– More upfront reliability planning and activities are realized

– Fewer prototypes are necessary to achieve reliability targets

– More accurate the reliability predictions

6

Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index (RLCMI)

The RLCMI positioning and benchmark activities will evaluate the Customer’s reliability maturity and help them advance to the next level

Key Steps to Growing your Reliability Maturity:– Establish current Reliability Maturity level within your

organization– Conduct benchmark at all levels of a

company – Conduct a gap analysis between

your company’s process and your industries best practices

Fiducia TG uses its RLCMI approach to benchmark a company’s reliability processes against the industry ‘s best practices

7

RLCMI Process Map for Reliability Maturity Improvement Planning

Reliability Methods

and Tools

Project #1

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead

Project Deliverables and

Measurables

Reliability Process

Implementation

Project #2

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability

Management

Project #1

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability Methods

and Tools

Project #2

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability Planning

Project #1

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability Process

Implementation

Project #3

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability Process

Implementation

Project #3

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability

Management

Project #2

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability

Management

Project #3

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Reliability Planning

Project #2

Project Objectives

Project

Tasks

Task

Dates

Task

Lead


Measurables

Project Planning for Maturity Growth

Positioning and Reliability Maturity

Gap Analysis

Team Workshops– Kick-off and Planning

Individual Interviews and Discussions

3

Benchmark Recently Closed Project

1

2

2aFiducia TG

Benchmarking Data

8

Fiducia TG has provided reliability management support to multiple industries and product markets

RLCM has been applied to such complex systems as:

1. Automotive

2. Light and Heavy-Duty Powertrain Systems

3. Trucks

4. Agricultural Equipment

5. Construction Equipment

6. Mining Equipment

7. Locomotives

8. Fork Trucks / Industrial Equipment

9. Injection Molding Machines

10. High Speed Laser Printers

11. Alternative Energy Industry

12. Medical Industry

file:///C:/Documents and Settings/Enrico Bergamasco/Impostazioni locali/Temporary Internet Files/Impostazioni locali/Temporary Internet Files/OLK70/Case_Studies/Off-Highway_SEALD_Loader_Asia/Case_Study.pptfile:///C:/Documents and Settings/Enrico Bergamasco/Impostazioni locali/Temporary Internet Files/Impostazioni locali/Temporary Internet Files/OLK70/Case_Studies/Off-Highway_SEALD_Loader_Asia/Case_Study.ppthttp://img.turbo.fr/02452024-photo-salon-tokyo-2009-honda-crz-concept-2009.jpghttp://img.turbo.fr/02452024-photo-salon-tokyo-2009-honda-crz-concept-2009.jpg

9

Reliability Life Cycle Management (RLCM) Level 3

Set

Reliability

Growth

Target

Analyze

Product New

Content

Plan Detailed

Proactive

Activities

Develop &

Evaluate

Alternative

RG Plans

Select and

Optimize RG

Plan

Execute RG

Test

Program

Track and

Manage RG

Status vs,

Plan

Adjust RG

Plan as

required

Product

Launch

Planning

RG Testing

Plan Detailed

RG Activities

Execute

Proactive

Activities

Track &

Manage

Proactive

Effort

Adjust RG

Plan as

required

Final

Evaluation of

Proactive

Effort

Analyze

Warranty

Data

Reliability

Capability

Analysis

Carry-Over

Failure Mode

Analysis

Proactive

10

RLCM Details

11

Warranty Data Analysis

12

Warranty Data Analysis

Current product Reliability performance baseline based on latest warranty data from the field. This includes the results below.

1. Customer Usage Distributions (usage time per year)

2. Failure Rates (Failures per Unit) during the base warranty period and other periods of customer ownership as required

3. Failure Cost (Warranty Repair Cost per Unit) During the Base Warranty Period and other periods of customer ownership as required

4. Infant Mortality and Useful Life reliability levels

13

Annual Usage Analysis Example

TB

TB Warranty Data 1999 7/1 to 12/31

Annual Usage Analysis

Model = FG (Excluding the Dump Truck and 4D33 Engine)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 -

50

00

50

00

- 1

00

00

10

00

0 -

15

00

0

15

00

0 -

20

00

0

20

00

0 -

25

00

0

25

00

0 -

30

00

0

30

00

0 -

35

00

0

35

00

0 -

40

00

0

40

00

0 -

45

00

0

45

00

0 -

50

00

0

50

00

0 -

55

00

0

55

00

0 -

60

00

0

60

00

0 -

65

00

0

65

00

0 -

70

00

0

70

00

0 -

75

00

0

75

00

0 -

80

00

0

80

00

0 -

85

00

0

85

00

0 -

90

00

0

90

00

0 -

95

00

0

95

00

0 -

10

00

00

10

00

00

- 1

05

00

0

10

50

00

- 1

10

00

0

11

00

00

- 1

15

00

0

11

50

00

- 1

20

00

0

12

00

00

- 1

25

00

0

12

50

00

- 1

30

00

0

> 1

30

00

0

Annual Usage (Kilometers)

Nu

mb

er o

f U

nit

s

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Cu

mu

lati

ve

% o

f T

ota

l

Units Included in Analysis: 539

66.6% of Units Registered

66.5% of Units Produced

Average: 28344.6 Kilometers

Example of Annual Usage

14

Failure Rate Example – First Year of Use

TB Canter

Warranty Data from year 2000 8/1 to 12/31, Japanese Market

Failures per Unit during First Years

Model = FG (Excluding the Dump Truck and 4D33 Engine)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 1 2 3 4 5 >=6

Failures per Unit

Nu

mb

er o

f U

nit

s

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

Cu

mu

lati

ve

% o

f T

ota

l

Units Included in Analysis: 538



Number of Failures: 399

Average: 0.742 Failures per Unit

90% Confidence Interval: [0.657, 0.827]

15

Infant Mortality and Useful Life MTBF’s

TB Canter

Warranty Data from year 2000 8/1 to 12/31, Japanese Market

Failures per Unit vs. Operating Time (First 30,000 Km)

Model = FG (Excluding Dump Truck and 4D33 Engine)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

Operating Time (Kilometers)

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Fa

ilu

res

per

Un

it Units Included in Analysis: 189



Warranty Period:

100000 Kilometers Usage

21112 Mean Kilometers Between Failures

Useful Life:


23112 Average Cost per Failure

Infant Mortality:


1.045 X (Useful Life Failure Rate)

23818 Average Cost per Failure

16

Reliability Capability Analysis

17


Reliability Capability

This is the best value of the reliability measure that the product can attain. It should take into consideration the following:

1. The complexity and nature of the product

2. The previous and new design concept

3. Historic product reliability levels for the company

4. Best-in-class and World class Reliability levels

For an aggressive program, the target will equal the Product Capability, but the target should never exceed the capability.

Reliability Capability provides a “Baseline” or “Benchmark” for what is realistically achievable. The higher the baseline, the higher the staring point will be.

18


Group DescriptionFailure

Frequency

L

Load factor

P

Product

design

factor

Pr

Process factor

S

Supplier

factor

Se

Servicablity

Factor

Ot

Other

Factor(s)

CF Trend FactorReliability

CapabilityFF Target Relaibility Capability Notes

Driving unit 0,07 1,3 1,2 0,8 1 1 1 1,04 1 0,07 0,07Thinner metal on the driving unit but stronger pushing

force, thinner metal easier to manufacturer

Forming unit 0,00 1,2 1 1 1 1 1 1,2 1 0,00 0,00 Increase force due to new design

Electrical unit 0,28 1 0,75 1 1 1 1 0,875 1 0,25 0,22New more accurate sensor and software changes due to

accuracy of the sensor

Storing unit 0,05 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,05 0,05

Button unit (C/O) 0,06 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,06 0,06

Housing (C/O) 0,02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,02 0,02

0,49 0,45 0,43


Frequency

Fd

Design Failure

Fp

Process

Failure

Fs

Supplier

Failure

Fse

Service

Failure

Failure Frequency Notes

Driving unit 0,07 0,25 0,5 0,25 0

Failure Modes:

Misalignment in assembly

High customer usage causes fatigue

Supplier tolerance issue

Forming unit 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25

Electrical unit 0,28 0,5 0,25 0,25 0

Failure Modes:

Accuracy issues

Early life issues

Storing unit 0,05 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25

Button unit (C/O) 0,06 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25

Housing (C/O) 0,02 0 0 1 0 All failures due to supplier

0,49

19

New Content Analysis

20

New Content Analysis

The objectives are:

1. Quantitatively evaluate the newness of the product design using a consistent method

2. Plan proactive reliability activities and the impact of the activities have on reliability risk reduction

3. Use the New Content result to empirically predict the starting reliability (or unreliability) of the first prototypes

4. Use the starting point prediction to proactively plan a Reliability Growth program for the new product

The larger the “New Content”:

1. The more untested and unproven the product design is

2. The more reliability risk associated with the new product

3. The more new, unforeseen, and unanticipated failure modes we expect

4. The higher our estimate for unreliability for the first prototypes produced

21

New Content Analysis Example


Frequency

Change in

Group

Group

Weighting

Factor (%)

Group New

Content

(Risk

Index)

Group New

Content

With

Proactive

Credits

Comments Type of Change

Degree

of

Change

Engine 0,32 20,0 4,3% 0,9 0,9Full carryover from NNM

wheel base

Proven Design in New

ApplicationLow

Fuel 0,25 0,0 3,4% 0,0 0,0Complete Carryover No Change in Design,

Application, or LoadsLow

Cab Interior and

Accessories0,43 10,0 5,9% 0,6 0,6

Modified seat for increase

comfort

Scaled Version of Proven

DesignLow

Cab Structure 0,22 15,0 3,0% 0,4 0,4Cab structure is carryover but

increased vehicle weight

Proven Design in

Existing Application

Change in Operating

Loads < 33%

Medium

Hydraulics 0,06 89,0 0,8% 0,7 0,7Complete redesign of

HydraulicsNew or Revised Design High

Electrical 0,53 10,0 7,2% 0,7 0,7 Reading light moved to COTS

Design Using

Components and Systems

Developed by an Outside

Source

Low

22

Target Setting

23

Target Setting

System Reliability

Target

Reliability Capability

Analysis

Adjust Target

and/or Redesign

RC >= Target

Finalize System

Reliability Target

Cascade Targets

YesNo

24

Definitions Bathtub Curve

BATHTUB CURVE

Life of Product

Failu

re R

ate

Infant Mortality Useful Life Wearout

Reliability Durability

Warranty time

Constant Failure Rate

during the Useful Life

RG Testing

25

Infant Mortality vs. Useful Life Reliability Growth

Level 3 addresses mostly Useful Life Reliability

But IM and UL cannot be effectively addressed simultaneously by a single Reliability Growth program. Separate RG programs are required.

Fa

ilu

re R

ate

Infant

Mortality

Useful Life Growth

Useful Life

Fa

ilu

re R

ate

Infant

Mortality

Infant Mortality Growth

Useful Life

26

Useful Life Reliability Growth is

accomplished using a combination of:

Engineering prototypes

Preproduction Units

Initial production units

Testing involves extended operation

well into the warranty period and

beyond

Most of the UL Growth effort needs to

be accomplished as early as possible,

using engineering prototypes and

preproduction units

Initial production units are used mostly

for UL verification, although a small

Growth effort is usually required

because of new problems introduced.

Useful Life Reliability Growth

Fa

ilu

re R

ate

Infant

Mortality

Useful Life Growth

Useful Life

27

Useful Life Reliability Target

RELIABILITY GROWTH TARGET

Canter TD

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000

Operating Time (Kilometers)

Mea

n K

ilo

met

ers

Bet

wee

n F

ail

ure

s

Target Description:

Type: Reliability Growth Test

Correlation Factor: 1 Test Failures/Warranty Claim

Operating Period: Useful Life


1.541 Failures per Unit

28

Proactive Reliability Planning

29

Proactive Reliability

Objective is to reduce reliability risk of product in concept and design phases Increase reliability of first prototypes

Reduce development costs

Reduced testing time to reach reliability targets

Optimize Proactive Activities Concentrate proactive activities on high new content items

Leverage existing knowledge

Concentrate on most likely failure modes

Plan and Track proactive reliability Plan each proactive reliability task and its effectiveness as it relates to

reliability.

Track each activity and evaluate the actual effectiveness of the activity

30

Proactive Reliability Activities

Activities that reduce the probability or risk of failures to occur for the chosen design (Does not include reliability validation testing)

Basic Proactive Reliability Methods1. Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA)

2. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)

3. Component and Subsystem Testing (Life Testing)

4. Technical Risk Analysis

Advanced Proactive Reliability Methods1. Accelerated Life Testing (ALT)

2. Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT)

3. Probabilistic Design (Stress and Strength analysis)

4. Design for Assembly (DFA)

5. Software Reliability Process

6. Design of Experiments (DOE)/ Robust Design

7. Design for Six Sigma

Highly Advanced Proactive Reliability Methods1. Monte Carlo Simulation

2. System Engineering and Analysis Leads to Reliability of Design (SEALrD)

3. Reliability Prediction Model

31

Proactive Reliability Planning

Group

DescriptionPlanned Proactive Activities

Systems Engineering (FEA,

Modeling, Simulation )

Description

Reliability Analysis (FMEA,

Fault Tree, Critical Items)

Description

Design for Manufacturing /

Design for Assembly

Description

Subsystem Reliability Testing

(RG, HALT, etc.)

Description

Electrical

Systems Engineering

(Analysis, Modeling,

Simulation)


Fault Tree, Derating)


Design for Assembly

Subsystem Reliability

Testing (RG, HALT, etc.)

High - Software Simulation Med. - D/PFMEA Med. - DFM/DFA

High - Component HALT

Testing

Tests to meet electrical

standards

Engine

Systems Engineering


Simulation)




Design for Assembly



Med. - FEA Low - DFMEA Low - DFM / DFA High –Engine durability test

Hydraulic





Med. - DFMEA and PFMEA Med. – Supplier Testing

Fuel

Systems Engineering


Simulation)





Med. - FEA Med. - D/PFMEA Med. – Supplier Testing

32

New Content Summary with Proactive

Product X

Without

Proactive

Credits

With Proactive

Credits

Total New Content 25.2 20.5

Phase 1 Unique New Content 24.5 20.0

Phase 2 Unique New Content 0.7 0.5

NEW CONTENT SUMMARY

33

Key Benefits of growth in Reliability Maturity and implementation of more formal Reliability Processes

34

Reliability Growth Planning

35

Initial Product X Plan

1266

30767

1340

55347Final Target = 64900

Phase 1255000 Kilometers

6 Test Units7/18/2000 - 6/30/2001


6 Test Units7/30/2001 - 1/31/2002

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Mea

n K

ilo

met

ers

Bet

wee

n F

ail

ure

s

Test Time

RELIABILITY GROWTH PLAN

RG Test Plan Product X

Total Test Time: 661567 KilometersStatistical Confidence: 50.0%Total Test Time 661567 Kilometer

Statistical Confidence 75%

36

How to reach Target

Reduce New Content

A. Additional proactive reliability activities

B. Reduce Change

Increase Reliability Capability

A. Concept with higher potential reliability

Increase Test Time

A. Add Test Units

B. Increase Length of Phase

Change Confidence Level

Increase Growth Rate

A. Add resources

Add Additional Growth Phase

37

Updated Growth Plan

1280

33597

1353

64903Final Target = 64900


6 Test Units7/18/2000 - 6/30/2001


8 Test Units7/30/2001 - 1/31/2002

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Mea

n K

ilo

met

ers

Bet

wee

n F

ail

ure

s

Test Time

RELIABILITY GROWTH PLAN

RG Test Plan Product X

Total Test Time: 811567 KilometersStatistical Confidence: 50.0%

Added 2 Additional Test Units

Remove a High Risk Item

Added Proactive Activities

Total Test Time 811567 Kilometer

Statistical Confidence 75%

38

Feasibility Analysis

39

Proactive Reliability Tracking

Verifying the Risk Mitigation Plan

40

Proactive Details Sheet with Added Tasks

Functional Group Proactive Activity Task

Begin

Date End Date

Percent

Complete Task NC Score

Electrical - Components System FMEA 2-Jan-06 6-Mar-06 0.0% 0.856

Electrical - Components DFMEA 2-Jan-06 6-Mar-06 0.0% 0.543

Electrical - Wiring Transmission FMEA 17-May-06 28-Jul-06 54.0% 0.048

Electrical - Wiring DFMEA 17-May-06 28-Jul-06 65.0% 0.035

Hydraulic - Components System FMEA 17-May-06 28-Jul-06 54.0% 0.163

Hydraulic - Components SKID Test 2-Jan-06 6-Mar-06 0.0% 0.406

Hydraulic System System FMEA 17-May-06 28-Jul-06 25.0% 0.041

Hydraulic System SKID test 2-Jan-06 6-Mar-06 0.0% 0.103

Hydraulic System 3D model of system 2-Jan-06 6-Mar-06 100.0% 0.000

Operator Controls FMEA on ICM 2-Jan-06 6-Mar-06 0.0% 0.117

41

Tracking NC Status

New Content Chart for Product Y

Target = 16.9

NC = 17.1

Failures = 49.6

Final MTBF = 64717

NC = 19.4

Failures = 50

Final MTBF = 59382

NC = 20.2

Failures = 55.7

Final MTBF = 54912

NC = 21.3

Failures = 61.3

Final MTBF = 49945

Target = 16.9

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

10/11/1998 12/28/1998 3/15/1999 6/1/1999 8/17/1999 11/3/1999 1/19/2000

Date

Ne

w C

on

ten

t

Planned New Content

Current New Content

Target

New Content Summary

Starting New Content: 21.3

Target New Content: 16.9

Planned New Content: 19.6

Current New Content: 19.7

42

Reliability Growth Testing

Monitoring and Managing Reliability Growth During the Vehicle Test Phases

43

Identify previously unknown and unforeseen product reliability problems through testing

Eliminate failure modes using an intensive and disciplined problem solving process

Achieve reliability levels in the engineering prototypes and first production-built units that are:

1. Acceptable for market introduction

2. Consistent with the reliability objectives for the mature product

Ensure that reliability improvement proceeds as planned and on schedule

Dramatic improvements must be made in a minimum amount of

time, using a limited number of test units

What are the Objectives of a RG Program?

44

Reliability Growth Monitoring

The objectives are:1. Use Reliability Growth Charts to continually monitor actual progress

relative to the plan

2. Know immediately when significant deviation from the plan has occurred

3. Proactively take the required corrective actions to ensure that the reliability target is achieved on time

45

Sample Reliability Growth Chart

Target = 32398

Final Target = 64900

1000

10000

100000

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Mea

n K

ilo

met

ers

Bet

wee

n F

ail

ure

s

Total Test Time (Kilometers)

RELIABILITY GROWTH CHART

RG Test Plan for Product X Final - Phase 1

Current Status:

Total Test Time: 255500 Kilometers

Mean Kilometers Between Failures: 29473

Statistical Confidence: 50%

Total Failures Reported: 24

Total Failures Resolved: 16

Actual Unresolved Failures: 8

Planned Unresolved Failures: 7

46

Sample Test Time Accumulation Chart

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

24

-Jun

-00

1-Ju

l-00

8-Ju

l-00

15

-Jul-0

02

2-Ju

l-00

29

-Jul-0

05

-Au

g-0

01

2-A

ug-0

01

9-A

ug-0

02

6-A

ug-0

02

-Sep

-00

9-S

ep

-00

16

-Sep

-00

23

-Sep

-00

30

-Sep

-00

7-O

ct-0

01

4-O

ct-0

02

1-O

ct-0

02

8-O

ct-0

04

-No

v-0

01

1-N

ov

-00

18

-No

v-0

02

5-N

ov

-00

2-D

ec-0

09

-Dec-0

01

6-D

ec-0

02

3-D

ec-0

03

0-D

ec-0

06

-Jan

-01

13

-Jan

-01

20

-Jan

-01

27

-Jan

-01

3-F

eb

-01

10

-Feb

-01

17

-Feb

-01

24

-Feb

-01

3-M

ar-0

11

0-M

ar-0

11

7-M

ar-0

12

4-M

ar-0

13

1-M

ar-0

17

-Ap

r-01

14

-Ap

r-01

21

-Ap

r-01

28

-Ap

r-01

5-M

ay

-01

12

-Ma

y-0

11

9-M

ay

-01

26

-Ma

y-0

12

-Jun

-01

9-Ju

n-0

11

6-Ju

n-0

12

3-Ju

n-0

13

0-Ju

n-0

17

-Jul-0

11

4-Ju

l-01

21

-Jul-0

1

To

tal T

est T

ime

(Kil

om

eter

s)

Date

TEST TIME ACCUMULATION

RG Test Plan for Product X Final - Phase 1

Planned

Actual

47

Summary and Benefits of the Methodology

RLCM

48

In addition, the RLCM process allows for multiple iterations of validation plans to be compared and assessed for feasibility of design alternatives

Risk Mitigation via Proactive Reliability Planning

Reliability Growth Plan

Concept New ContentRisk Analysis

Target not AchievedWithin Budget

Target Achieved with High Cost

Target Achieved with Lower Cost

Target Not Achievable within Current Budget

Calendar Time

Re

liab

ility

Ris

k

New Content Risk Proactive Planning

Calendar Time

Re

liab

ility

Ris

k


Reliability Risk for Concept A

Reliability Risk for Concept B

Reliability Risk for Concept C

Calendar Time

Re

liab

ility

Ris

k


Calendar Time

Re

liab

ility

Ris

k


48

49

Benefits of the RLCM Methodology

Each RLCMI level is breakthrough in reliability achievement

Provides a comprehensive and proven approach to Reliability Management

Emphasizes proactively planning the program and managing product development activities relative to the plan

Assists in prioritizing and planning proactive (preventative) activities and planning for the benefits of those efforts in terms of reduced RG testing and/or warranty costs.

Supports the transition and maturation of the product development process over time

1. From TAAF (Test Analyze And Fix) to failure prevention

2. From vehicle testing for Growth to vehicle testing for verification

50

Contact Information

Jim Bartos

Fiducia TechneGroup LLCNPD Reliability ManagerE-mail: [email protected]: +1 513.309.5191

51

Let us prove it… with YOUR data!

Raising the Value of Your

Product Development Efforts