#360 – HOW MUCH RELIABILITY DATA IS ENOUGH! – FRED SCHENKELBERG

Featured

Some may argue that just enough reliability data is just the right amount. Too much may lead to confusion, too little doesn’t inform well. The reliability work we do helps others make decisions, and recent work in how humans make decisions may help us prepare and present our results effectively.

If preparing reliability data-based recommendations, consider using less information. Ed O’Brien and Nadav Klein have found decision-makers tend to use much less data or information to make a decision than they think they will need. Continue reading

#359 – THREE WAYS TO IMPROVE YOUR RELIABILITY THINKING – FRED SCHENKELBERG

Featured

I often joke that being a reliability engineer makes it difficult to get on an airplane. Yet air travel is by far the safest method of transportation. Maybe I just think about failure too much.

When a project manager views the day’s tasks, she sees timelines, connections, dependencies. When a marketing manager views a product idea, she sees benefits, sales channels, and profits. When a reliability engineer views a prototype, she sees the many ways it can fail

Continue reading

#357 – PRIORITIZING URGENT VS. IMPORTANT RELIABILITY TASKS – FRED SCHENKELBERG

Featured

As reliability professionals, we have a lot to do. Risks to identify, failures to analyze. Plans to draft, numbers to crunch. Meetings, writing, research, and leading fill the day.

The list of tasks that you have before you each day is impressive and daunting. So, how do you focus on what actually requires your attention and not just the tasks that get your attention? Continue reading

#356 – DESIGN FOR RISK IDEA – FRED SCHENKELBERG

Featured

Yesterday had the chance to review the long list of Design for X topics. Assembly, environment, maintainability, and of course reliability, plus about a dozen other areas of focus. How is a design team to navigate all these different sets of constraints and objectives along with crafting a solution that works?

With a little creativity, you could relate every Design for X topic to reliability. Easier to assembly, fewer assembly errors leading to field failures, for example. Continue reading

#355 – DESIGN FOR RISK INSTEAD FOR DESIGN FOR X – FRED SCHENKELBERG

Featured

At the heart of every ‘design for… something’ is an attempt to avoid uncertainty. By exerting conscious effort to consider a set of considerations or constraints, the design process attempts to avoid the downside of missing something deemed important. Or, they are attempting to include features and capabilities to enhance a product. Continue reading