50 Ways to Improve Product Reliability - ARS Presentation 2011

2011 ARS, North America, San DiegoTrack 2, Session 7

Begins at 10:30AM, Wednesday, June 8th

50 Ways to Improve Product Reliability

Mike Silverman, Ops A La Carte LLC

Ops A La Carte Slide Number: 2S7T2App

lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Agenda

Introduction 5 minWhat are the 50 Techniques? 15 minHow to decide which are best? 25 minSummary 5 minQuestions 10 min

Note that some of this material has been taken from Mike’s book “How Reliable Is Your Product: 50 Ways to Improve Product Reliability”


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Introduction

Reliability is an interesting discipline because there are many techniques you can use to solve problems and create a reliable product.

There certainly are guidelines and best practices, but you should determine for yourself the set of techniques that will work within your company.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Introduction, continued

Some of the factors you should consider are: - Size of your company- Company culture- Past experiences- Background education- Marketplace- Customer requirements


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Problem Statement

When faced with the challenge of developing a reliability program, many engineers don’t understand how to choose the right techniques or how to integrate the techniques together.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Solution

In this presentation I will review the most popular reliability techniques and explain when to use them (and when not to use them) as well as how to integrate them together into your overall reliability program.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Reliability Techniques by PLC PhaseGoal

SettingAssess-

mentBench-mark

FTAFMEA

GoldenNuggets

Component Selection

Predict-ions

ThermalAnalysis

DeratingAnalysis

POF

DOE Tolerance Analysis

Preventive Mainten.

EOL Analysis

WarrantyAnalysis

TestPlan

HALT RDT ALT HALT-AFR Calculator

FEA SoftwareReliability

RCA CLCA

VendorAssessme

nt

HASS ORT OOBA

LessonsLearned

WarrantyReturns

ReliabilityReporting

Statistics EDA forObsolesc

Out-sourcing

Metrics

ReliabilityPlan

CO

NC

EPT

PHA

SED

ESIG

NPH

ASE

MA

NU

FAC

TU

RIN

G

PHA

SEPR

OTO

TY

PE PH

ASE

Gap Analysis

Block Diagrams


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

AssessmentGoal SettingGap AnalysisBenchmarkingMetricsBlock DiagrammingGolden NuggetsReliability Plan

Techniques in the Concept Phase


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

FMEA FTA Component

Selection Predictions Thermal Analysis Derating Analysis Physics of Failure

DOE Tolerance Analysis Preventive

Maintenance End-of-Life AnalysisWarranty Analysis FEA Software Reliability

Techniques in the Design Phase


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Test PlanHALTRDTALTHALT-to-AFR CalculatorRCAClosed Loop Corrective Action

Techniques in the Prototype Phase


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Vendor Assessment Outsourcing Design

and Manufacturing HASS ORT Out of Box Audits

Lessons LearnedWarranty Returns Reliability Reporting Statistics EDA for

Obsolescence

Techniques in the Manufacturing Phase


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Choosing the Right Techniques

You do not need to use all of the techniques I have described

You must choose the best techniques from this list based on the needs of your company and your product.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Cost Schedule

Reliability

Performance

Customer Satisfaction

Engineering teams must balance cost, schedule, performanceand reliability to achieve optimal customer satisfaction.

Design Trade-offs


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Reliability vs. Cost

To minimize total Life Cycle Costs (LCC), an organization must do two things:

1. Choose the best tools from all of the tools available and apply these tools at the proper phases of the product life cycle.

2. Properly integrate these tools together to assure that the proper information is fed forwards and backwards at the proper times.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Reliability vs. Cost, continuedC

OST

RELIABILITY

TOTAL COST CURVE

RELIABILITY PROGRAM COSTS

WARRANTY COSTS

OPTIMUM COST POINT


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Reliability Integration

“the process of seamlessly, cohesively integrating reliability

tools together to maximize reliability and at the lowest

possible cost”


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Reliability Integration Concept Phase Example

Integrating Goals with a Reliability ProgramThe Reliability Program Assessment drives the rest of the activities in your reliability program. The recommendations from the assessment help guide your company’s future action for your entire reliability program. At suitable points during your program it also makes sense to reassess your situation to determine how much the gap has shrunk and how close you are to achieving your goals.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Case Example of Concept Phase Reliability Technique

Case Study: Linking Electrical, Mechanical, and Software Reliability togetherWe were working with a semiconductor equipment company to help improve their reliability on their next generation product. First, we provided a Design for Reliability (DFR) seminar for each of the three different disciplines – the electrical group, the mechanical group, and the software group. Then we met with the electrical, mechanical, and software team leads and developed reliability goals.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Case Example of Concept Phase Reliability Technique, cont.

Case Study: Linking Disciplines together, cont


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20


Case Study: Linking Disciplines together, contNext, we started with high level system goals and the apportioned the goals down to each subsystem – electrical, mechanical, and software.

Each group lead then took the goal for his subsystem and broke it down further within his area.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20


Case Study: Linking Disciplines together, contThen we worked with each group lead to put together a reliability program plan to meet his subsystem goals. We rolled each of these different subsystem plans into an overall reliability plan for the product.

Then we worked with each group lead to ensure he was on track for meeting his subsystem goals throughout the product development process.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20


Case Study: Linking Disciplines together, contThe end result was that our client was able to achieve their reliability goals for each subsystem and for the system as a whole.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Reliability Integration Design Phase Example

Integrating FMEA within a HALT PlanFMEA is a great technique to use prior to writing a HALT Plan because the FMEA can identify how different portions of the product can fail so that you can develop tests to validate the mitigation for these failure modes. In addition, the FMEA can point out non-relevant failure modes so that when you are developing your test plan you choose stresses and levels that avoid finding these failures.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Case Example of Design Phase Reliability Technique

Case Study: FMEA Driven Test Plan for a Medical Infusion Pump

RELIABILITY PROGRAMThe infusion pump was an n+1 designWe started from the goal and planThen we performed an FMEA to identify the

risks of the new elements in the designThen we wrote a test plan to mitigate the risks


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

MEDICAL INFUSION PUMP

Case Example of Design Phase Reliability Technique, cont.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

REVIEW NEW ASSEMBLIES/FEATURESTwo new motors - one for the cassette insertion

and removal, and one for the air sensor to pinch the tubing in order to detect air bubbles in the line.A new power supply that was larger and also had

a battery charging circuit for the new rechargeable battery.A touch screenAn 802.11 wireless interfaceA new rechargeable battery designNew software to handle all of these new features



lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

IDENTIFY RELIABILITY RISKSUsing the Risk Analysis process, we identified

as many new risks as possibleThen we set out to figure ways of mitigating

these risksDesign analysis techniques such as FEA, DOE,

and Thermal AnalysisAccelerated Testing techniques such as HALT,

ALT, and RDTThe important element here is that we always

had an eye on our goal.



lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

RELIABILITY TECHNIQUES USEDMotors – FEA, ALTPower Supply – HALT then RDTTouch Screen – ALT, Abuse TestingWireless Interface - HALTBattery – Application Specific ALTSoftware – Software FMEA, Software Use

Case Testing



lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

RESULTSUsing this process we saved time and money.We found out issues during the design analysis

that would have required a redesign had we found them later in the design, or worse, out in the fieldWe found out issues during the testing that

would have set our program back months.End result: We developed and delivered a very

reliable product and got it to market faster.



lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Reliability Integration Prototype Phase Example

Integrating Reliability Prediction and HALT with the HALT-to-AFR CalculatorTwo key pieces of information we use for the HALT-to-AFR Calculator are:1) MTBF results from the Reliability Prediction2) Operating limits from the HALT


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Reliability Integration Prototype Phase Example, cont.Integrating using HALT-to-AFR Calculator, cont

The HALT-to-AFR Calculator uses the MTBF number from the Reliability Prediction We recommend that you compare the highest failure items in the Reliability Prediction to the failures you found in HALT. The better the correlation between these two, the more accurate the HALT-to-AFR Calculator will be.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Reliability Integration Prototype Phase Example, cont.Integrating using HALT-to-AFR Calculator, cont

The HALT-to-AFR Calculator uses the operating limits from the HALT which you directly enter as a data point. The more thorough you are in HALT in expanding the design margins, separating out weaker assemblies, removing protection circuitry or firmware, and providing effective corrective actions, the more accurate the HALT-to-AFR Calculator will be.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Case Example of Prototype Phase Reliability Technique

Switching from RDT to HALT-to-AFR CalculatorMost companies can’t justify using RDT because RDT requires too many samples and the testing takes too long to get the results. Yet HALT in itself isn’t capable of determining field MTBF. This is precisely why the HALT-to-AFR Calculator was developed. It saves time and money without compromising the accuracy.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Case Example of Prototype Phase Reliability Technique, cont.Switching to HALT-to-AFR Calculator, cont.

Field Failure Rate Estimate - % of Failures/Year

Input Matrix Data VerifiyMTBF (in Hrs) = 40,000 OK Key

Product Thermal (Hot in °C) = 94 OK User inputProduct Thermal (Cold in °C) = -58 OK Calculated

Product Vibration (in Grms) = 80 OK SelectionProd Published Spec Level (see below) = 3 OK Data Validity

Number of HALT Samples = 4 OK

Steady State AFR, % (HALT Only) = 1.06Steady State Field MTBF, Hrs (HALT Only) = 822954

Lower 90% HALT Confidence Limit = 443657Upper 90% HALT Confidence Limit = 1691518

Published Spec Level # Guard Band Limits0 to +40 1 Consumer -30 to +800 to +50 2 Hi-end Consumer -30 to +100

-10 to +50 3 Hi Performance -40 to +110 -20 to +50 4 Critical Application -50 to +110 -25 to +65 5 Sheltered -50 to +110 -40 to +85 6 All Outdoor -65 to +110


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Reliability Integration Manufacturing Phase Example

Integrating Reliability Predictions with HASSHow do you know if HASS is needed and if so, how effective must the HASS be to meet your reliability goals? Your prediction is only accounting for steady state failures and doesn’t account for infant mortality failures. Therefore, if you are just barely making your goal after the product reaches steady state, you don’t have a chance of meeting your goal before the product reaches steady state unless you have an effective manufacturing screening program.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Case Example of Manufacturing Phase Reliability Technique

Choosing the Correct Stresses for HASSA computer company asked us to help them determine the best manufacturing screening methodology. They had been using various types of screens for years.

Every time a major failure occurred during the manufacturing process, they changed the screen because they thought the screen was inducing the failures.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Case Example of Manufacturing Phase Reliability Technique, cont.

Choosing the Correct Stresses for HASS contWe had them list the top failures across the product lines of interest. We listed those on a vertical axis.

Then on the horizontal axis, we listed about a dozen different types of screens (including ones they tried in the past plus some they hadn’t tried).


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20


Choosing the Correct Stresses for HASS contThen we filled out the matrix by marking an “x” in the boxes for those screens that would be effective at finding each type of failure.

For those that we weren’t sure about, we researched the failure modes on the internet including past papers written on the subject.

The screen that had the most “x’s” in it was deemed the most effective.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20


Choosing the Correct Stresses for HASS contNext we determined how to implement this screen within the cost and schedule constraints. Our client ended up with a screen that was significantly more effective at finding manufacturing defects, thereby reducing the number of field failures.

The new screen only cost a few dollars more per system.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20


SCREEN OPTIONS 1 2 3 4HASA on

boards only inside unit

Unit Burn-In Sample

Unit Burn-In 100% No Screen Units

Screen Parameters (initial estimate) -50 to 75C @ 40C/min w/20G

50C, 48 Hours 50C, 48 Hours N/A

NRE Total 27,800 5,000 5,000 $Cost of Defects Not Found 738,000 888,750 810,000 900,000 $Cost of Screening per Year 30,000 24,000 240,000 0Cost of No Screening 900,000 900,000 900,000 900,000 $ROI in 1st Year $104,200 ($17,750) ($155,000) $0ROI in 5 Years $632,200 ($68,750) ($755,000) $0RANKING (by ROI) 1st 3rd 4th 2nd


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20


Choosing the Correct Stresses for HASS contThe net effect was that the new screen saved our client thousands of dollars per year.

This example illustrates the power of an ROI Analysis as well as the variables we recommend including in an ROI Analysis.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Steps to an Effective Rel. Program

1. Assess / Plan 2. Execute 3. Review


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11Step 1: Assess Your Needs, Setting a Goal, and Writing a Rel. Program Plan

© 2008 Ops A La Carte43

A detailed evaluation of an organization’s approach and processes involved in creating reliable products. The assessment captures the current state and leads to an actionable reliability program plan.

• Initiate a Reliability Program• Determine next best steps• Reduce customer complaints • Select right tools• Improve reliability

Now

Goal

$ unreliability

$ Profits

Assessment Interviews

StatisticalData Analysis

Benchmarking

Gap Analysis

Program Plan

complaints

fieldfailures

satisfaction

marketshare

? Unknown Reliability ?


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

As you execute your reliability program, it is important to have the right metrics in place to assure you are on track to meet your reliability goals.

Step 2: Execute and Collect Metrics


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

No technique is perfect. You will miss some failures. The important thing is to quickly determine why you didn’t catch the defect and to modify your program to make sure you find it on future iterations of the design or on future designs.

Step 3: Review Field Data for Gaps and Modify Your Program Accordingly


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Conclusion

The key to an effective reliability program is knowing which techniques to use, when and how to use them, and how to integrate them into your overall reliability program.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Mike Silverman Mike Silverman, (408) 472-3889, [email protected]

Mike is founder and managing partner at Ops A La Carte, a Professional Business Operations Company that offers a broad array of expert services in support of new product development and production initiatives. The primary set of services currently being offered are in the area of reliability. Through Ops A La Carte, Mike has had extensive experience as a consultant to high-tech companies, and has consulted for over 500 companies in a variety of different industries including medical, defense, space, energy, consumer, telecom, and many others. Mike just completed his first book on Reliability entitled “How Reliable Is Your Product: 50 Ways to Improve Product Reliability”

Mike has 25 years of reliability, quality, and compliance experience, the majority in start-up companies. He is also an expert in accelerated reliability techniques, including HALT and HASS. He set up and ran an accelerated reliability test lab for 10 years, testing over 500 products for 200 companies in 50 different industries. Mike and his team at Ops have authored and published over 50 papers and 30 seminars on reliability techniques and has presented these around the world including China, Germany, Japan, and Canada.

Mike has a BS degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Colorado at Boulder, and is both a Certified Reliability Engineer and a course instructor through the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and IEEE, Mike is a member of ASQ, IEEE, SME, ASME, PATCA, and IEEE Consulting Society and currently the IEEE Reliability Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter President.


lied

Rel

iabi

lity

Sym

posi

um, N

orth

Am

eric

a 20

11

Questions

Thank you for your attention.

Do you have any questions?

50 Ways to Improve Product Reliability - ARS Presentation 2011

Documents

Transcript of 50 Ways to Improve Product Reliability - ARS Presentation 2011