Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site
Part of what appears to be a series on what it takes to be a really good reliability engineer.
For professionals knowing enough of the right people, helping them solve issues, and asking them for assistance when needed is essential. This is what I mean by networking. [Read more…]
Part one is available till the end of July for free download, and part two is schedule in the September issue. Download journal and consider joining at http://buff.ly/1cHwtkU
The post on ethics and MTBF and the comments has me thinking about what it means to be a talented and professional reliability engineer. [Read more…]
by Andrew Rowland, CRE – a contributed paper.
Andrew is back with a paper describing using non-parametric approach to maintenance data. While not mentioning MTBF (which is good) the paper does provide alternatives to using a overly simply (i.e. MTBF) analysis of maintenance data.
A well written case study and analysis will provide you inspiration to try it yourself. [Read more…]
A friend and colleague brought a thesis paper by Louis J Hogge to my attention. Titled “Effective Measurement of Reliability of Repairable USAF Systems, the document proceeds to recommend the US Air Force to stop using MTBF and related measures and instead to use Mean Cumulative Functions (MCF) instead. [Read more…]
The National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) has a code of ethics. As expected. Other professional groups also have similar code of ethics that provide guidance to their members and set expectations for everyone.
Do all components follow the bathtub curve? Is it possible to generate a bathtub curve for a component?
Thanks for your thoughts and insights!
V.
This is a good question. [Read more…]
This note is the second part of my response to a forum entry by HL concerning two arguments he is attempting to refute. Of course, my arguments for the eradication of MTBF may stir up some resistance. My plea to use a better approach may challenge the status quo or ruffle a few feathers. So be it. That is expected. [Read more…]
A forum post recently correctly found two of my many arguments for the eradication of MTBF incorrect or invalid. Maybe the author (HL) has a valid point. Let’s take a closer look at the note and the writer’s reasoning. [Read more…]
MTBF is a common reliability metric. It is totally useless in most applications. So, why do we use it? And what can we do as reliability professionals to lead our industries away from using MTBF?
A recent set of forum discussions raised the idea that we use MTBF because our customers require it. Another writer suggested that MTBF is useful because it has been in use for so long, and therefore it must be useful. Another writer advertised their offer to determine MTBF for you for a small charge. [Read more…]
This past week I’ve heard from a few that have taken the ASQ Certified Reliability Engineer exam. The common comment was on the use of MTBF and the exponential distribution. It seems to emphasized.
That is bad. [Read more…]
Linkedin groups are a continual source of interesting questions. We learn and share with each other to grapple with some of the common and not so common issues we face at work. For example, recently in the Plant Reliabilty & Maintenance Professionals – PRMP Linkedin group the follow in question appeared. [Read more…]
Seeing a book announcement for Duke Okes Performance Metrics: The Levers for Process Improvement made me think. The except titled “Psychological Impact of Metrics” included the notion that metrics drive behavior. That isn’t new, yet Duke went on to provide a way to determine the worthiness of metrics. [Read more…]
One of the venues for learning about reliability is the blogosphere. In some cases purely educational, others are more appropriate for the opinion page. Some comment on interesting facets of reliability and maintenance engineering, while others focus on examples of services provided.