Consider the Decision Making First

Reliability activities serve one purpose, to support better decision making.

That is all it does. Reliability work may reveal design weaknesses, which we can decide to address. Reliability work may estimate the longevity of a device, allowing decisions when compared to objectives for reliability.

Creating a report that no one reads is not the purpose of reliability. Running a test or analysis to simply ‘do reliability’ is not helpful to anyone. Anything with MTBF involved … well, you know how I feel about that.

The Type III Error

A common problem in engineering work is the desire to solve the wrong problem. I know I am guilty of working on the issues that hold my interest rather than the challenges requiring action. A Type III error is solving the wrong problem.

We only have so much time and resources for reliability work. There are plenty of challenges and interesting aspects of sorting out the reliability of a system. It is the focus on solving the right problems that matter. It is solving the right issues that provide value to the team and organization.

For each action you plan or execute in a reliability program, ask if this something you are doing because you want to, or because it will add value. One trigger to ask this question is the ‘we always do this test’ concept. If you are tempted to build a plan based on previous plans or add activities and tests because, well, you always do those activities and tests, then stop. Stop and think through how those activities and test will be used, by whom, by when, and to what effect.

Pending Decisions Drive Action

The key is to connect every activity and test to a decision. If you are interested in conducting an ALT on a new technology, is there someone looking for the results of that ALT to inform a decision? In some cases, the decision may be to abandon the new technology if it isn’t reliable enough, or it may mean selecting a different technology. 

Once you find the pending decision, then you know who needs the information, the expected quality of the information, and when it is due.

From FMEA (prioritizing work assignment across the team) to field data analysis (do we need design improvements?) each and every action we propose or take must connect to a decision.

MTBF and Decisions

Let’s say we’re asked to create a reliability goal for a new product. Let’s explore who the stakeholders are in this case.

Customers want a reliable product and on occasion may ask for it via MTBF. If asked they actually want something else yet do not know how to articulate it. Providing them a goal stated in MTBF is simply misleading them and allowing poor decision making.

Management wants a reliable enough product to both please customers and avoids undo warranty costs. Again they want a product that lasts a long time with a low failure rate, not MTBF. If asked they may ask for MTBF thinking it is a term used to request reliability information. As you know it’s not, and providing them with MTBF values further confuses their understanding of product performance.

Engineers want to create a product the meets the customers and business expectations, including being reliable. We often break down reliability problems into two groups, early life failures and wear out failures. Neither are well described by MTBF, so don’t, use reliability for the salient time points in your product’s life.

Vendors want to provide the right components to meet the design’s intent. They want to accommodate requests for reliability and often provide MTBF as that seems to satisfy most requests. By asking for reliability, i.e. not MTBF you can learn more about how the component may actually perform in your application.

In each of these cases and in others we’re talking about reliability, thus use the probability of successful operation over a duration for a given function and environment. Help those interested in creating or using a reliable product actually make useful and meaningful decisions with a clear measure.

Summary

The same logic holds for any reliability activity first think about the decisions involved with the results of the activity. Then craft activities that fit within the constraints and deliver suitable results to assist in better decision making.

From goal setting to FMEA’s, to HALT, to field data analysis – if no one is looking for the results, then don’t do it. Help your team by improving the information they have to make decisions.

Fred Schenkelberg is an experienced reliability engineering and management consultant with his firm FMS Reliability. His passion is working with teams to create cost-effective reliability programs that solve problems, create durable and reliable products, increase customer satisfaction, and reduce warranty costs. If you enjoyed this article consider subscribing to the ongoing series at Accendo Reliability.