Many engineers and managers developing products or maintaining equipment seem to be afflicted with “knowledge apathy” concerning reliability. “They don’t care!” is a posted comment I have seen in Linkedin. Has this happened? Have we lost the ability to care about reliability?

RELIABILITY UNDERSTANDING

In a course I teach on reliability engineering management I ask my students to find an advertisement using reliability as a central theme or claim. This isn’t very hard to do and I’ve regularly been surprised at the range of uses advertising finds around the concept of reliability. Reliable Movers claims to reliably and safely move your belongings to your new home, a reliable shotgun ammunition-loading device manufacturer suggests that each shell will fire reliably, and many other advertisements use the basic concepts of consistency, repeatability, safety, and trustworthiness via the term reliable or reliability. There is a common and good association with reliability.

The engineering definition of reliability is similar, yet it is very specific:

The probability of successful operation or function over a defined period time in a specified environment.

There are only four elements: probability, duration, function, and environment.

Most agree that this definition is correct and useful. The function is often well understood, and it is clear when the equipment is working or when it has failed. The environment includes the weather and use profiles and is also generally well understood. Duration is the expected time period of use. It is the probability term that tends to muddle the understanding.

APATHY CONTRIBUTORS

Is statistics to blame for the apathy? I would suggest that this is not entirely the case. Some of it could be the delay of feedback to design and maintenance teams. It takes time to find out whether a product actually meets the reliability objectives. If a solar panel is designed to produce power with 80% efficiency for 20 years, it will take 20 years to determine the actual performance.

Another factor contributing to reliability knowledge apathy is the rewards system in many organizations. In some organizations the “hero” who steps in to fix a major problem is visible, recognized, and rewarded, whereas the engineer who identifies and avoids major failures is just doing his or her job. Although the engineer may have saved the organization millions of dollars in warranty expenses, such actions are often unseen, rarely recognized, and hardly rewarded. People do work for status, and being a hero brings status. That tends to encourage the apathy behavior, as without errors to fix there are fewer chances to be the hero.

Yet another factor may be the specialization of engineering work. The mechanical engineer focuses on material strength, fastening options, and efficient transfer of energy or motion. The electrical engineer focuses on power consumption, circuit speed, and timing. A system’s fan is often overlooked as a component other than as providing airflow to produce cooling for the system. However, the fan is a complex electromechanical device that is neither the domain of electrical engineers (who provide it power and see its cooling benefit by the cooling) nor the domain of mechanical engineers (who focus on its support, attachment, and location). Neither spends the time to address the selection of the fan related to the fan’s reliability, which results in fans being a common element of the design that fails. Neither specialized engineer has the knowledge to address the cross-discipline elements at play within the fan.

Of course, time to market, throughput, cost, and management priorities all contribute to the apathy. The rewards, directives, encouragements, and priorities often do not include any aspect of reliability.

BUILDING RELIABILITY KNOWLEDGE

So, what do we do? How can we diminish the apathy around reliability?

I do not exactly know but have a few suggestions. As I continue to work with teams and learn what works to instill a passion for reliability I’ll come up with better directives, yet, in the meantime, here’s what I’ve seen make at least some difference:

1. Promote awareness – Let others know the engineering definition of reliability and articulate it clearly for your projects.
2. Focus on value – Use reliability-engineering tools that enable decisions.
3. Set goals – Set and track progress toward meaningful reliability objectives.
4. Acknowledge success – Document and celebrate the successful avoidance of reliability problems (not just acknowledge the hero).
5. Use the math – Embrace the math around reliability statistics. Talk with data.
6. Generalize – Work with specialists to find gaps in system reliability understanding.

There is no doubt more ways to avoid or reverse reliability knowledge apathy but being aware of the issue is the first step in contending with it.

Bio:

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 articles consider subscribing to the ongoing series Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics.