2011 RAMS Tutorial Effective Reliability Program Traits and Management

904 views

Published on

Tutorial presentation on what makes the difference between a good program and a great one.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
904
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2011 RAMS Tutorial Effective Reliability Program Traits and Management

  1. 1. Effective Reliability ProgramTraits and Management Fred Schenkelberg Ops A La Carte, LLC
  2. 2. Reliability Engineering ManagementFred SchenkelbergSenior Reliability ConsultantOps A La Carte, LLC(408) 710-8248fms@opsalacarte.com
  3. 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.
  4. 4. My Background and Context
  5. 5. Primary Reference McGRAW-HILL, 1996 ISBN: 00701-27506
  6. 6. 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 if Free: The Art of Making Quality Certain, Philip B. Crosby, 1979 Design Paradigms: Case Histories of Error and Judgment in Engineering, Henry Petroski, 1994
  7. 7. HP’s Design for Reliability Story Which activities have impact?
  8. 8. Product Development (THE OLD WAY) GOOD FAST CHEAP PICK ANY TWO!
  9. 9. The Situation "Based on an in-depth study of HPs most successful divisions, we discovered that as much as 25% of our manufacturing assets were 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."
  10. 10. The 10X Challenge "The proper place to start, we concluded, was with a startling goal - one that would get attention. The goal we chose was a tenfold reduction in the failure rates of our products during the 1980s." John Young HP CEO
  11. 11. Dick Moss retired from HP in February1999, as the Corporate ProductReliability Manager and winner of theCEO’s Customer Satisfaction Award.He worked at HP 39 years, the first 15in new product development (R&D),and the last 24 in hardware quality &reliability. During that time, hepresented more than 700 technicalseminars to over 35,000 HP employeesworldwide. He wrote or edited parts of4 books and published numerouspapers. He holds a BSEE fromPrinceton and an MSEE from Stanford,and has one patent.
  12. 12. The 10X Challenge ResultsFAILURE RATE Actual 10X Goal (Normalized) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.126 ACTUAL (8X) 0.100 GOAL (10X) 0.0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 FISCAL YEAR
  13. 13. Warranty Savings During 10X (ACTUAL vs PROJECTED @ 1980 RATE) ACTUAL 1980 RATE $300M $200M ANNUAL $808 MILLIONEXPENSE 10 YR SAVINGS PROJECTED COST $100M ACTUAL WTY COST 0 FY80 FY81 FY82 FY83 FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90 FISCAL YEAR
  14. 14. Design for Reliability HOWD WE DO THAT? Commitment Management Leadership & Involvement Lengthen Warranty Period Find & Share Best Practices
  15. 15. thoughts or questions  what are your questions? • …your comments?
  16. 16. DFR Survey SURVEY CHECKLISTScoring: 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 Preferred technology programManagement: Component qualification testing Goal setting for division OEM selection & qualif. Testing Priority of Quality & Reliab. Physical failure analysis Mgmnt attention & follow up Root cause analysisManufacturing: 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
  17. 17. resultswidespread use environmental test manual product lifecyclerange of use module goal setting derating ruleslimited use DFR training physics of failure analysis
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. observationsbest 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
  20. 20. QUESTIONS?04/23/2002 Design For Reliability - 20 Overview.PPT
  21. 21. Reliability Goal Setting Establish the target in an engineering meaningful manner
  22. 22. 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.
  23. 23. 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.
  24. 24. Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary A reliability goal includes each of the four elements of the reliability definition. o Intended function o Environment (including use profile) o Duration o Probability of success o [Customer expectations]
  25. 25. Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary A reliability metric is often something that organization can measure on a relatively short periodic basis. o Predicted failure rate (during design phase) o Field failure rate o Warranty o Actual field return rate o Dead on Arrival rate
  26. 26. Reliability Goal-Setting Reliability Goals can be derived from o Customer-specified or implied requirements o Internally-specified or self-imposed requirements (usually based on trying to be better than previous products) o Benchmarking against competition
  27. 27. Example Exercise Elements of Product Requirements Document Take notes to build a reliability goal statement
  28. 28. 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 Dev A. 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.
  29. 29. 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.
  30. 30. 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 PeriodThe project goal is less than 2% at the end of first years production. MaintainabilityThe Dev A is intended to be serviced and repaired by Company A authorized service centers or authorized health care providers.
  31. 31. PRD Reliability Section Useful LifeThe useful design life of the Dev A shall be 6,000 hours based on 4 years at 4 hours use per day.(PRD077)
  32. 32. 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-condensingAtmospheric Pressure: 76.7 to 102 kPaDC Supply Voltage: 4.5 to 6.5 VDC
  33. 33. PRD Environment Section Storage 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-condensing The Dev A and all package contents shall be stored in a sealed plastic bag away from oil and grease contaminates.(PRD080)
  34. 34. 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)
  35. 35. Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary  A reliability metric is often something that organization can measure on a relatively short, periodic basis: o Predicted failure rate (during design phase) o Field failure rate o Warranty o Actual field return rate o Dead on Arrival rate(v5)
  36. 36. Fully-Stated Reliability Goals  System goal at multiple points o Supporting metrics during development and field o 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.(v5)
  37. 37. Reliability Goal −t  Let’s say we expect a few  failures in one year. Less than 2% R(t ) = e θ ln(.98) = −8760 / θ  Laboratory environ.  XYZ function   XYZ function for one year with Assuming constant failure rate 98% reliability in the lab.  (MTBF is 433,605 hrs.)(v5)
  38. 38. Other Points in Time  Also consider other business relevant points in time  Infant mortality, out of box type failures o Shipping damage o Component defects, manufacturing defects  Wear out related failures o Bearings, connectors, solder joints, e-caps(v5)
  39. 39. 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. o A desktop business computer in office environment with 95% reliability at one year.(v5)
  40. 40. Break Down the Goal, (continued)  For simplicity consider five major elements of the computer o CPU/motherboard o Hard Disk Drive o Power Supply o Monitor o Bios, firmware  For starters, let’s give each sub-system the same goal(v5)
  41. 41. 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.(v5)
  42. 42. Estimate Reliability  The next step is to determine the sub-system reliability. o Historical data from similar products o Reliability estimates/test data by vendors o In house reliability testing  At first estimates are crude, refine as needed to make good decisions.(v5)
  43. 43. 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?(v5)
  44. 44. Resolving the Gap  CPU goal 99% est. 96%  Use the simple reliability model to determine if reliability improvements will impact the  Largest gap, lowest estimate system reliability. i.e. changing the bios reliability form 99.9% to  First, will the known issues 99.99% will not significantly bridge the difference? alter the system reliability result.   Invest in improvements that will In not enough, then use FMEA and HALT to populate Pareto of impact the system reliability. what to fix  Third, validate improvements(v5)
  45. 45. Resolving the Gap, (continued)   When the relationship of the HDD goal 0.99 est. 0.98 failure mode and either design or environmental conditions  Small gap, clear path to resolve exist we do not need FMEA or HALT – go straight to design  HDD reliability and operating improvements. temperature are related. Lowering the internal  Use ALT to validate the model temperature the HDD and/or design improvements. experiences will improve performance.(v5)
  46. 46. Resolving the Gap, (continued)   For any subsystem that exceeds P/S goal 0.99 est. 0.999 the reliability goal, explore potential cost savings by reducing the  Estimate over the goal reliability performance.  This is only done when there is  Further improvement not cost accurate reliability estimates and effective given minimal impact significant cost savings. to system reliability.  Possible to reduce reliability (select less expensive model) and use savings to improve CPU/motherboard.(v5)
  47. 47. Progression of Estimates Uppe r Con fide nce in Estim ate Actual Field Data at a Dt s e T at a Dr odne V te stima e in E fi de nc Con e n gn El aiti nI er L ow(v5) i
  48. 48. Microsoft Model  Proposed 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)(v5)
  49. 49. Reliability Goals & Metrics Summary A reliability goal includes each of the four elements of the reliability definition. o Intended function o Environment (including use profile) o Duration o Probability of success o [Customer expectations]
  50. 50. Reliability Philosophies Two fundamental methods to achieving high product reliability
  51. 51. 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
  52. 52. 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.
  53. 53. Issues with each approachBuild, Test, Fix Analytical Uncertain if design is  Fix mostly known flaws good enough  ALT’s take too long Limited prototypes  RDT’s take even longer means limited flaws  Models have large discovered uncertainty with new Unable to plan for technology and warranty or field service environments
  54. 54. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review
  55. 55. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review
  56. 56. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review
  57. 57. Balanced approach Goal Plan FMEA Prediction HALT RDT/ALT Verification Review
  58. 58. Reliability Planning Selecting the minimum set of tools to achieve the reliability goals
  59. 59. 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.”
  60. 60. Fully Stated Reliability Goals System goal at multiple points o Supporting metrics during development and field o 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.
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. 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
  63. 63. 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 o Timelines change o Goals and risks change o Business objectives and customer expectations change o The organization has grown/lost capabilities
  64. 64. If, small gap and clear ParatoThen, 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 resolve Assumes a system/sub-system reliability model, even as simple as Parato based on failure rates. Engineers may need ALT to verify solution assumptions
  65. 65. If, large gap and clear ParatoThen, Same as small gap, generally Early step is to estimate ability to close gap with reasonable business risk If there is doubt on validity of issues to resolve, consider HALT to uncover possible new issues
  66. 66. If, new features, new market Then, Increase use of HALT, including on competitor’s products if possible Increase 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
  67. 67. If, reliant on vendor’s failure analysisThen, Consider building internal or third party failure analysis and component expertise Accelerate time to detection of vendor issues
  68. 68. 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
  69. 69. 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?
  70. 70. Close on Planning Discussion Introduction to Planning Fully stated reliability goals Constraints o Timeline o Prototype samples o Capabilities (skills and maturity) Current state and gap to goal Paths to close the gap o Investments o Dual paths o Tolerance for risk
  71. 71. Television"People will soon get tired of staring at aplywood box every night." Darryl F. Zanuck Twentieth Century-Fox, 1946
  72. 72. Reliability Value How to speak in management’s language
  73. 73. A Reliability Engineer’s Use ofWarranty Cost Information Fred Schenkelberg
  74. 74. Introduction Many (most, all?) products have a warranty Examples of how to use this information in your reliability engineering work
  75. 75. 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
  76. 76. 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?
  77. 77. Warranty Week www.warrantyweek.com
  78. 78. Computers“There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their home.” Ken Olson Digital Equipment Corp. 1977
  79. 79. 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
  80. 80. 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 µ = θΓ1 +   β  
  81. 81. 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 /θ ) β R (t ) = e Fan A reliability at 100 hours is 0.95 Fan B reliability at 100 hours is 0.974
  82. 82. 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
  83. 83. The Telephone"Thats an amazing invention, but whowould ever want to use one of them?" Rutherford Hayes U.S. President, 1876
  84. 84. 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?
  85. 85. 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
  86. 86. The Cost Reduction Example Total Cost of $0.10 FET  1000  − R0.10 (1000 ) = e  75, 000  = 0.987 #Failed = (1-0.987) 1000units = 13.25 Cost of Repairs = 250*13 = $3250 Total Cost = $3250+0.10*1000 = $3350
  87. 87. The Cost Reduction Example Total Cost of $0.05 FET  1000  − R0.05 (1000 ) = e  50 , 000  = 0.98 #Failed = (1-0.98) 1000units = 20 Cost of Repairs = 250*20 = $5000 Total Cost = $5000+0.05*1000 = $5050
  88. 88. The Cost Reduction Example Total Cost of $0.50 FET  1000  − R0.50 (1000 ) = e  100 , 000  = 0.99 #Failed = (1-0.99) 1000units = 10 Cost of Repairs = 250*10 = $2500 Total Cost = $2500+0.50*1000 = $3000
  89. 89. 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
  90. 90. 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
  91. 91. 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?
  92. 92. Component Challenges P50 formula error example Cracked ceramic capacitors
  93. 93. Component Challenges Trust and verify solution Build strong, technically verifiable, language into purchase contracts Check construction and formulation on periodic basis
  94. 94. Nuclear Energy"Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners willprobably be a reality within 10 years." Alex Lewyt vacuum cleaner manufacturer,1955
  95. 95. 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.
  96. 96. Reliability Engineering ValueHow to determine ‘value add’ or ROI
  97. 97. “All metrics are wrong, some are useful.”
  98. 98. value
  99. 99. Terms Value o An amount considered to be a suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return for goods or services Value Add o The return or result of individual, team or product investment Value Capture o Value add documentation related directly to merger Warranty Reduction o Lower failure rates leading to fewer claims
  100. 100. 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?
  101. 101. current status
  102. 102. Warranty – The Big Picture”American manufacturers spent over $25 billion in2004 honoring their product warranties, an increaseof 4.8% from the levels seen in 2003. However, anincredible 63% of U.S.-based product manufacturersactually saw a decrease in their claims rates as apercentage of sales. Only 35% saw an increase and2% saw no change, according to the latest statisticscompiled by Warranty Week.” Eric Arnum, Warranty Week www.warrantyweek.com, May 27th, 2005
  103. 103. document value
  104. 104. VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE Savings/Impact/Benefit1. Risk / cost / warranty a. Has the work directly identified or mitigated a field related problemreduction 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?
  105. 105. VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE Savings/Impact/Benefit3. 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 identified4. Material costs: a. Did we avoid or save any direct product material or test equipment costs? b. If so please identify type and cost5. 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 improvement6.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)
  106. 106. “I fall back dazzled at beholding myself all rosy red,At having, I myself, caused the sun to rise Edmund Rostand (1868-1918)
  107. 107. VALUE ADDED/ROI QUESTIONAIRE Savings/Impact/Benefit8. Engineering effort a. How long would it have taken your team to undertake thesaved: 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 personnel9. Misc a. Please identify any other benefits or cost savings from using our resources
  108. 108. “Gross national product measures neither the health of our children,the quality of their education, nor the joy of their playIt measures neither the beauty of our poetry, nor the strength of ourmarriages.It is indifferent to the decency of our factories and the safety of ourstreets alike.It measures neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our wit norour courage, neither our compassion or our devotion to country.It measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthliving, and it can tell us everything about our country except thosethings which make us proud to be part of it.” Robert Kennedy
  109. 109. Your ‘value case’ Problem statement Work done to solve problem Value statement(s)
  110. 110. Reliability Maturity How to understand an organization’s reliability culture
  111. 111. Maturity Matrix Handout Matrix Based on Quality Management Maturity Grid from Quality is Free, c 1979 by Philip B. Crosby
  112. 112. Measurement Categories Management Understanding and Attitude o Business objectives and language o Attention and investments Reliability Status o Position and stature o Location and influence
  113. 113. Measurement Categories Problem Handling o Proactive or Reactive Cost of ‘Un’ Reliability o Understanding and influence of metrics o Local budget or total product cost Feedback Process o Predictions, reliability testing o Failure analysis, time to detection
  114. 114. Measurement Categories DFR program status o Exists separately or integrated o Template or customized Summation of Reliability Posture o How does the organization talk about reliability?
  115. 115. 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.”
  116. 116. 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.”
  117. 117. 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.”
  118. 118. 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”
  119. 119. 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.”
  120. 120. 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
  121. 121. How to determine maturity? Self assessment o Small team from across organization o Each marks blocks that describe their maturity o Team determine Stage description by consensus Observation from within an organization o As an individual trying to position changes o Informally conduct self assessment
  122. 122. How to determine maturity? Assessment Interviews o Conduct interviews to understand current reliability activities o Review and summarize interviews o Interpret results onto maturity matrix
  123. 123.  What are your questions?
  124. 124. Reliability Assessment Using a survey to quickly understand the organization’s reliability program
  125. 125. 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
  126. 126. 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
  127. 127. design survey topicsDesign: 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
  128. 128. 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
  129. 129. manufacturing survey topicsManufacturing: 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
  130. 130. 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
  131. 131. AC, Inc. key points MTBF metrics Excellent field data Very limited sample sizes Reactive mode to improvement activities
  132. 132. AC, Inc. Recommendations Use 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.
  133. 133. AC, Inc. Recommendations Build 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.
  134. 134. 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.

×