Fiducia TG Reliability Life Cycle Management (RLCM)

Transcription

1 Fiducia TG Reliability Life Cycle Management (RLCM) May 26 th 2016 Jim Bartos 1

2 Introduction About Fiducia TG 1. Fiducia TG is Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio USA A. Reliability Benchmarking based on Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index (RLCMI) B. Reliability Life Cycle Management (RLCM) C. Reliability Methods About Presentation 1. Review Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index for Complex Systems 2. Show Details of Reliability Life Cycle Management Index A. Review Basic Steps of Level 3 B. Review some of the details of several steps 2

3 Agenda Introduction to RLCMI and RLCM RLCMI Details Reliability Planning Proactive Reliability Reliability Growth Tracking Summary Questions 10 min 20 min 10 min 5 min 5 min 10 min 3

4 Need for Reliability Reliability is a major driver of Customer Perceived Value CUSTOMER PERCEIVED VALUE SERVICE PERFORMANCE PRODUCT PERFORMANCE RELIABILITY QUALITY COST OF OWNERSHIP INTANGIBLE DRIVERS A Reliability Program should encompass all the key activities needed, from concept development through production, to deliver high value & successful products to customers Reliability should be managed in all life cycle phases, with a systemic approach and throughout the Extended Enterprise 4

5 Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index (RLCMI) Is a index of different Reliability Life Cycle Management Levels (RLCM) How can RLCMI bring value to your organization and Customers? Companies who achieved higher RLCMI level experienced: Lower the product development cost and time to market. More upfront reliability planning and activities are realized Fewer prototypes are necessary to achieve reliability targets More accurate the reliability predictions Each level represents a breakthrough in the effectiveness of the reliability process and the results achieved 5

6 Reliability Life Cycle Maturity Index (RLCMI) The RLCMI positioning and benchmark activities will evaluate the Customer s reliability maturity and help them advance to the next level Key Steps to Growing your Reliability Maturity: Establish current Reliability Maturity level within your organization Conduct benchmark at all levels of a company Conduct a gap analysis between your company s process and your industries best practices Fiducia TG uses its RLCMI approach to benchmark a company s reliability processes against the industry s best practices 6

7 RLCMI Process Map for Reliability Maturity Improvement Planning 1 Team Workshops Kick-off and Planning 2a Fiducia TG Benchmarking Data 2 3 Individual Interviews and Discussions Benchmark Recently Closed Project Positioning and Reliability Maturity Gap Analysis Project Planning for Maturity Growth Reliability Methods Reliability Process Reliability Reliability and Tools Methods Reliability Planning Implementation Reliability Process Management Reliability Project and Tools #1 Reliability Project #1 Planning Implementation Project Reliability #2 Process Project Management Reliability #1 Project #2 Project #2 Implementation Project #3 Project Management #2 Project Objectives Project Objectives Project #3 Project Objectives Project Objectives Project #3 Project Objectives Project Objectives Project Objectives Project Objectives Project Deliverables and Project Deliverables Project Objectives and Project Deliverables and Project Deliverables Project Objectives and Project Measurables Deliverables and Project Measurables Deliverables and Project Measurables Deliverables and Project Measurables Deliverables and Measurables Project Measurables Deliverables and Measurables Project Measurables Deliverables and Measurables Measurables Project Tasks Project Tasks Task Dates Task Dates Task Lead Task Lead Project Task Task Tasks Project Dates Task Lead Task Tasks Project Dates Task Lead Task Tasks Dates Lead Project Tasks Project Tasks Task Dates Task Dates Task Lead Task Lead Project Task Task Tasks Project Dates Task Lead Task Tasks Project Dates Task Lead Task Tasks Dates Lead 7

8 Fiducia TG has provided reliability management support to multiple industries and product markets RLCM has been applied to such complex systems as: 1. Automotive 2. Light and Heavy-Duty Powertrain Systems 3. Trucks 4. Agricultural Equipment 5. Construction Equipment 6. Mining Equipment 7. Locomotives 8. Fork Trucks / Industrial Equipment 9. Injection Molding Machines 10. High Speed Laser Printers 11. Alternative Energy Industry 12. Medical Industry 8

9 Reliability Life Cycle Management (RLCM) Level 3 Analyze Warranty Data Planning Carry-Over Failure Mode Analysis Reliability Capability Analysis Set Reliability Growth Target Analyze Product New Content Plan Detailed Proactive Activities Develop & Evaluate Alternative RG Plans Select and Optimize RG Plan Execute Proactive Activities Execute RG Test Program Track & Manage Proactive Effort Final Evaluation of Proactive Effort Plan Detailed RG Activities Track and Manage RG Status vs, Plan Product Launch Proactive Adjust RG Plan as required Adjust RG Plan as required RG Testing 9

10 10 RLCM Details

11 11 Warranty Data Analysis

12 Warranty Data Analysis Current product Reliability performance baseline based on latest warranty data from the field. This includes the results below. 1. Customer Usage Distributions (usage time per year) 2. Failure Rates (Failures per Unit) during the base warranty period and other periods of customer ownership as required 3. Failure Cost (Warranty Repair Cost per Unit) During the Base Warranty Period and other periods of customer ownership as required 4. Infant Mortality and Useful Life reliability levels 12

13 Annual Usage Analysis Example Example of Annual Usage TB TB Warranty Data /1 to 12/31 Annual Usage Analysis Model = FG (Excluding the Dump Truck and 4D33 Engine) % Number of Units Units Included in Analysis: % of Units Registered 66.5% of Units Produced Average: Kilometers > % 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Cumulative % of Total Annual Usage (Kilometers) 13

14 Failure Rate Example First Year of Use TB Canter Warranty Data from year /1 to 12/31, Japanese Market Failures per Unit during First Years Model = FG (Excluding the Dump Truck and 4D33 Engine) % % Number of Units Units Included in Analysis: % of Units Registered 99.8% of Units Produced Number of Failures: 399 Average: Failures per Unit 90% Confidence Interval: [0.657, 0.827] 80.0% 60.0% 40.0% Cumulative % of Total % >=6 0.0% Failures per Unit 14

15 Infant Mortality and Useful Life MTBF s 2.00 TB Canter Warranty Data from year /1 to 12/31, Japanese Market Failures per Unit vs. Operating Time (First 30,000 Km) Model = FG (Excluding Dump Truck and 4D33 Engine) 1.80 Cumulative Failures per Unit Operating Time (Kilometers) Units Included in Analysis: % of Units Registered 35.1% of Units Produced Warranty Period: Kilometers Usage Mean Kilometers Between Failures Useful Life: Mean Kilometers Between Failures Average Cost per Failure Infant Mortality: Mean Kilometers Between Failures X (Useful Life Failure Rate) Average Cost per Failure 15

16 Reliability Capability Analysis 16

17 Reliability Capability Analysis Reliability Capability This is the best value of the reliability measure that the product can attain. It should take into consideration the following: 1. The complexity and nature of the product 2. The previous and new design concept 3. Historic product reliability levels for the company 4. Best-in-class and World class Reliability levels For an aggressive program, the target will equal the Product Capability, but the target should never exceed the capability. Reliability Capability provides a Baseline or Benchmark for what is realistically achievable. The higher the baseline, the higher the staring point will be. 17

18 Reliability Capability Analysis Group Description Failure Frequency Fd Design Failure Fp Process Failure Fs Supplier Failure Fse Service Failure Driving unit 0,07 0,25 0,5 0,25 0 Forming unit 0,00 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 Electrical unit 0,28 0,5 0,25 0,25 0 Failure Frequency Notes Failure Modes: Misalignment in assembly High customer usage causes fatigue Supplier tolerance issue Failure Modes: Accuracy issues Early life issues Storing unit 0,05 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 Button unit (C/O) 0,06 0,25 0,25 0,25 0,25 Housing (C/O) 0, All failures due to supplier 0,49 Group Description Failure Frequency L Load factor P Product design factor Pr Process factor S Supplier factor Se Servicablity Factor Ot Other Factor(s) CF Trend Factor Reliability Capability FF Target Relaibility Capability Notes Driving unit 0,07 1,3 1,2 0, ,04 1 0,07 0,07 Thinner metal on the driving unit but stronger pushing force, thinner metal easier to manufacturer Forming unit 0,00 1, ,2 1 0,00 0,00 Increase force due to new design Electrical unit 0,28 1 0, , ,25 0,22 New more accurate sensor and software changes due to accuracy of the sensor Storing unit 0, ,05 0,05 Button unit (C/O) 0, ,06 0,06 Housing (C/O) 0, ,02 0,02 0,49 0,45 0,43 18

19 New Content Analysis 19

20 New Content Analysis The objectives are: 1. Quantitatively evaluate the newness of the product design using a consistent method 2. Plan proactive reliability activities and the impact of the activities have on reliability risk reduction 3. Use the New Content result to empirically predict the starting reliability (or unreliability) of the first prototypes 4. Use the starting point prediction to proactively plan a Reliability Growth program for the new product The larger the New Content : 1. The more untested and unproven the product design is 2. The more reliability risk associated with the new product 3. The more new, unforeseen, and unanticipated failure modes we expect 4. The higher our estimate for unreliability for the first prototypes produced 20

21 New Content Analysis Example Group Description Failure Change in Frequency Group Group Weighting Factor (%) Group New Content (Risk Index) Group New Content With Proactive Credits Engine 0,32 20,0 4,3% 0,9 0,9 Fuel 0,25 0,0 3,4% 0,0 0,0 Cab Interior and Accessories 0,43 10,0 5,9% 0,6 0,6 Cab Structure 0,22 15,0 3,0% 0,4 0,4 Hydraulics 0,06 89,0 0,8% 0,7 0,7 Comments Full carryover from NNM wheel base Complete Carryover Modified seat for increase comfort Cab structure is carryover but increased vehicle weight Complete redesign of Hydraulics Type of Change Proven Design in New Application No Change in Design, Application, or Loads Scaled Version of Proven Design Proven Design in Existing Application Change in Operating Loads < 33% New or Revised Design Design Using Electrical 0,53 10,0 7,2% 0,7 0,7 Components and Systems Reading light moved to COTS Developed by an Outside Source Degree of Change Low Low Low Medium High Low 21

22 Target Setting 22

23 Target Setting Reliability Capability Analysis RC >= Target System Reliability Target Adjust Target and/or Redesign No Yes Finalize System Reliability Target Cascade Targets 23

24 Definitions Bathtub Curve BATHTUB CURVE Constant Failure Rate during the Useful Life Infant Mortality Useful Life Wearout Warranty time Failure Rate RG Testing Reliability Durability Life of Product 24

25 Infant Mortality vs. Useful Life Reliability Growth Level 3 addresses mostly Useful Life Reliability But IM and UL cannot be effectively addressed simultaneously by a single Reliability Growth program. Separate RG programs are required. Useful Life Growth Infant Mortality Growth Failure Rate Failure Rate Infant Mortality Useful Life Infant Mortality Useful Life 25

26 Useful Life Reliability Growth Useful Life Reliability Growth is accomplished using a combination of: Engineering prototypes Preproduction Units Initial production units Testing involves extended operation well into the warranty period and beyond Most of the UL Growth effort needs to be accomplished as early as possible, using engineering prototypes and preproduction units Initial production units are used mostly for UL verification, although a small Growth effort is usually required because of new problems introduced. Failure Rate Useful Life Growth Infant Mortality Useful Life 26

27 Useful Life Reliability Target 0 RELIABILITY GROWTH TARGET Canter TD Mean Kilometers Between Failures Target Description: Type: Reliability Growth Test Correlation Factor: 1 Test Failures/Warranty Claim Operating Period: Useful Life Mean Kilometers Between Failures Failures per Unit Operating Time (Kilometers) 27

28 Proactive Reliability Planning 28

29 Proactive Reliability Objective is to reduce reliability risk of product in concept and design phases Increase reliability of first prototypes Reduce development costs Reduced testing time to reach reliability targets Optimize Proactive Activities Concentrate proactive activities on high new content items Leverage existing knowledge Concentrate on most likely failure modes Plan and Track proactive reliability Plan each proactive reliability task and its effectiveness as it relates to reliability. Track each activity and evaluate the actual effectiveness of the activity 29

30 Proactive Reliability Activities Activities that reduce the probability or risk of failures to occur for the chosen design (Does not include reliability validation testing) Basic Proactive Reliability Methods 1. Failure Modes and Effect Analysis (FMEA) 2. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA) 3. Component and Subsystem Testing (Life Testing) 4. Technical Risk Analysis Advanced Proactive Reliability Methods 1. Accelerated Life Testing (ALT) 2. Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) 3. Probabilistic Design (Stress and Strength analysis) 4. Design for Assembly (DFA) 5. Software Reliability Process 6. Design of Experiments (DOE)/ Robust Design 7. Design for Six Sigma Highly Advanced Proactive Reliability Methods 1. Monte Carlo Simulation 2. System Engineering and Analysis Leads to Reliability of Design (SEALrD) 3. Reliability Prediction Model 30

31 Proactive Reliability Planning Group Description Planned Proactive Activities Systems Engineering (FEA, Modeling, Simulation ) Description Reliability Analysis (FMEA, Fault Tree, Critical Items) Description Design for Manufacturing / Design for Assembly Description Subsystem Reliability Testing (RG, HALT, etc.) Description Electrical Engine Hydraulic Fuel Systems Engineering (Analysis, Modeling, Simulation) Reliability Analysis (FMEA, Fault Tree, Derating) Design for Manufacturing / Design for Assembly Subsystem Reliability Testing (RG, HALT, etc.) Systems Engineering (Analysis, Modeling, Simulation) Reliability Analysis (FMEA, Fault Tree, Derating) Design for Manufacturing / Design for Assembly Subsystem Reliability Testing (RG, HALT, etc.) Reliability Analysis (FMEA, Fault Tree, Derating) Subsystem Reliability Testing (RG, HALT, etc.) Systems Engineering (Analysis, Modeling, Simulation) Reliability Analysis (FMEA, Fault Tree, Derating) Subsystem Reliability Testing (RG, HALT, etc.) High - Software Simulation Med. - D/PFMEA Med. - DFM/DFA High - Component HALT Testing Tests to meet electrical standards Med. - FEA Low - DFMEA Low - DFM / DFA High Engine durability test Med. - DFMEA and PFMEA Med. Supplier Testing Med. - FEA Med. - D/PFMEA Med. Supplier Testing 31

32 New Content Summary with Proactive NEW CONTENT SUMMARY Product X Without Proactive Credits With Proactive Credits Total New Content Phase 1 Unique New Content Phase 2 Unique New Content

33 Key Benefits of growth in Reliability Maturity and implementation of more formal Reliability Processes 33

34 Reliability Growth Planning 34

35 Mean Kilometers Between Failures Initial Product X Plan RELIABILITY GROWTH PLAN RG Test Plan Product X Phase Kilometers 6 Test Units 7/18/2000-6/30/2001 Final Target = Phase Kilometers 6 Test Units 7/30/2001-1/31/ Total Test Time: Kilometers Statistical Confidence: 75% 50.0% 10 1 Test Time 35

36 How to reach Target Reduce New Content A. Additional proactive reliability activities B. Reduce Change Increase Reliability Capability A. Concept with higher potential reliability Increase Test Time A. Add Test Units B. Increase Length of Phase Change Confidence Level Increase Growth Rate A. Add resources Add Additional Growth Phase 36

37 Updated Growth Plan Mean Kilometers Between Failures RELIABILITY GROWTH PLAN RG Test Plan Product X Phase Kilometers 6 Test Units 7/18/2000-6/30/2001 Final Target = Phase Kilometers 8 Test Units 7/30/2001-1/31/ Added 2 Additional Test Units Remove a High Risk Item Added Proactive Activities Test Time Total Test Time: Kilometers Statistical Confidence: 75% 50.0% 37

38 Feasibility Analysis 38

39 Proactive Reliability Tracking Verifying the Risk Mitigation Plan 39

40 Proactive Details Sheet with Added Tasks Functional Group Proactive Activity Task Begin Date End Date Percent Complete Task NC Score Electrical - Components System FMEA 2-Jan-06 6-Mar % Electrical - Components DFMEA 2-Jan-06 6-Mar % Electrical - Wiring Transmission FMEA 17-May Jul % Electrical - Wiring DFMEA 17-May Jul % Hydraulic - Components System FMEA 17-May Jul % Hydraulic - Components SKID Test 2-Jan-06 6-Mar % Hydraulic System System FMEA 17-May Jul % Hydraulic System SKID test 2-Jan-06 6-Mar % Hydraulic System 3D model of system 2-Jan-06 6-Mar % Operator Controls FMEA on ICM 2-Jan-06 6-Mar %

41 New Content Tracking NC Status New Content Chart for Product Y 22 NC = 21.3 Failures = 61.3 Final MTBF = NC = 20.2 Failures = 55.7 Final MTBF = New Content Summary Starting New Content: 21.3 Target New Content: 16.9 Planned New Content: 19.6 Current New Content: 19.7 NC = 19.4 Failures = 50 Final MTBF = NC = 17.1 Failures = 49.6 Final MTBF = Planned New Content Current New Content Target 17 Target = 16.9 Target = /11/ /28/1998 3/15/1999 6/1/1999 8/17/ /3/1999 1/19/2000 Date 41

42 Reliability Growth Testing Monitoring and Managing Reliability Growth During the Vehicle Test Phases 42

43 What are the Objectives of a RG Program? Identify previously unknown and unforeseen product reliability problems through testing Eliminate failure modes using an intensive and disciplined problem solving process Achieve reliability levels in the engineering prototypes and first production-built units that are: 1. Acceptable for market introduction 2. Consistent with the reliability objectives for the mature product Ensure that reliability improvement proceeds as planned and on schedule Dramatic improvements must be made in a minimum amount of time, using a limited number of test units 43

44 Reliability Growth Monitoring The objectives are: 1. Use Reliability Growth Charts to continually monitor actual progress relative to the plan 2. Know immediately when significant deviation from the plan has occurred 3. Proactively take the required corrective actions to ensure that the reliability target is achieved on time 44

45 Mean Kilometers Between Failures Sample Reliability Growth Chart RELIABILITY GROWTH CHART RG Test Plan for Product X Final - Phase 1 Final Target = Target = Current Status: Total Test Time (Kilometers) Total Test Time: Kilometers Mean Kilometers Between Failures: Statistical Confidence: 50% Total Failures Reported: 24 Total Failures Resolved: 16 Actual Unresolved Failures: 8 Planned Unresolved Failures: 7 45

46 Total Test Time (Kilometers) Sample Test Time Accumulation Chart TEST TIME ACCUMULATION RG Test Plan for Product X Final - Phase Planned Actual Jul Jul-01 7-Jul Jun Jun Jun-01 9-Jun-01 2-Jun May May May-01 5-May Apr Apr Apr-01 7-Apr Mar Mar Mar Mar-01 3-Mar Feb Feb Feb-01 3-Feb Jan Jan Jan-01 6-Jan Dec Dec Dec-00 9-Dec-00 2-Dec Nov Nov Nov-00 4-Nov Oct Oct Oct-00 7-Oct Sep Sep Sep-00 9-Sep-00 2-Sep Aug Aug Aug-00 5-Aug Jul Jul Jul-00 8-Jul-00 1-Jul Jun-00 Date 46

47 Summary and Benefits of the Methodology RLCM 47

48 Reliability Risk Reliability Risk Reliability Risk Reliability Risk In addition, the RLCM process allows for multiple iterations of validation plans to be compared and assessed for feasibility of design alternatives New Content Risk Proactive Planning Calendar Time Reliability Risk for Concept A New Content Risk Proactive Planning Target Not Achievable Target within not Achieved Current Budget Within Budget Calendar Time New Content Risk Proactive Planning Target Achieved with High Cost Calendar Time Reliability Risk for Concept B New Content Risk Proactive Planning Calendar Time Target Achieved with Lower Cost Reliability Risk for Concept C Concept New Content Risk Analysis Risk Mitigation via Proactive Reliability Planning Reliability Growth Plan

49 Benefits of the RLCM Methodology Each RLCMI level is breakthrough in reliability achievement Provides a comprehensive and proven approach to Reliability Management Emphasizes proactively planning the program and managing product development activities relative to the plan Assists in prioritizing and planning proactive (preventative) activities and planning for the benefits of those efforts in terms of reduced RG testing and/or warranty costs. Supports the transition and maturation of the product development process over time 1. From TAAF (Test Analyze And Fix) to failure prevention 2. From vehicle testing for Growth to vehicle testing for verification 49

50 Contact Information Jim Bartos Fiducia TechneGroup LLC NPD Reliability Manager Mobile:

51 Raising the Value of Your Product Development Efforts Let us prove it with YOUR data! 51