Reliability Organization part 2 FMS Reliability


Published on

How does one setup and organize a reliability program. Central team or dispersed? A two part essay on what I've seen and what I believe is important.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reliability Organization part 2 FMS Reliability

  1. 1. f m sre liabilit m m/educatio n/reliability-o rganizatio n-part-2/ Reliability Organization part 2 Decision Focus and Value Last week I discussed how the aspects of the structure in an organization relate to product reliability. Related to that, this week the discussion will remain on the level of a reliability organization, but will look at something a bit more intangible – how decision-making policy and practice af f ects product reliability. Reliability Organization An essential element of a successf ul reliability program is the notion that all reliability activity relates to decisions. If you are perf orming a HALT because it is listed on the product development guidelines, or because it was carried over f rom the last program’s plan, and the HALT results are not part of the design improvement decision-making process, then you probably should not be doing so. If the HALT results yield little or no inf ormation (e.g., it is just being checked of f the list as accomplished) then the HALT itself provides little or no value. If perf ormance of a HALT is on the plan because the new product has new materials, vendors, or design elements, then it may reveal weaknesses. If that list of weaknesses is made available to the design team members and they are permitted and encouraged to improve the design based on that input, then the HALT data can provide input to decisions about design improvements. T he value that the HALT plays here is related to reduced f ield f ailures f rom design improvement opportunities discovered by such highly accelerated lif e testing. If the HALT is done too late to permit any decisions to improve the product, it has no value. If the HALT is done to f acilitate decision making concerning design improvements, it may have great value. [Hobbs 2000] Another example of decision making is lif e testing to estimate the expected durability of a product. At some point in most product development processes there is a meeting to decide whether the product is ready f or production and shipment. One element of this decision is the ability of the design to meet or exceed product reliability objectives. As an example, say a motor is the key element that will determine the lif e of the product and currently there is uncertainty concerning the motor’s expected reliability perf ormance. T heref ore the team decides to conduct an accelerated lif e test. If the test provides a meaningf ul estimate prior to the decision point on readiness, it adds value. If the ALT provides results a f ew months af ter products start shipping, it adds little value f or the readiness decision prior to launch. During product development or maintenance planning two basic questions are of ten asked: 1. What will f ail? 2. When will it f ail?