An article of questionable quality was featured in the Dec/Jan 2014 edition of Uptime magazine. The utilization of Strategic Reliability Principles is a topic of debate: while some aspects align with probability/life distribution theory, others are criticized for lacking accurate time to failure data. An arbitrary 80% figure without proper documentation raises concerns, as reliable knowledge is typically derived from well-documented data. Additionally, the identification of key subject matter experts (SMEs) is not always accurate, despite claims of being close to the problem. The concept of "hidden" failures is discussed, with emphasis on failures occurring when equipment is not in use. While some points hold truth, a frivolous 30% figure is mentioned. Overall, the ideas presented are worth consideration but are sometimes awkwardly expressed, and the distinction between sudden and gradual failures is emphasized.
Unable to view the article, only available are toolboxes or stories of success.
Hello David, the hyperlink you provided seems to be broken. I have a physical copy of the publication, but I am having trouble locating the specific article you referenced. Can you offer any assistance or guidance?
Discover how Strategic Reliability Principles can help break the cycle of despair in this informative article titled "Breaking the Reliability Cycle: A Strategic Approach." Explore the powerful application of these principles to improve reliability and productivity in your organization.
In order to fully understand reliable asset performance, it is crucial to grasp the NINE PRINCIPLES OF RELIABILITY. These principles highlight key aspects such as the random occurrence of equipment failures, the predictable degradation curve leading to functional failure, and the importance of utilizing human senses for detection. Additionally, the involvement of subject matter experts in problem-solving, the significance of failure consequences, and the acceptance of inherent risks are emphasized. Assets must be designed, installed, operated, and maintained effectively to perform as intended, with failure modes categorized based on their occurrence. The process of understanding and implementing these principles is essential for organizations looking to improve performance and decision-making in terms of asset management. Through education and commitment, reliability leaders can drive positive change within their organizations.
David G, your claim that a "hidden" failure only occurs when equipment is not operating is inaccurate. In fact, the equipment could still be running, but a hidden function within it may have failed without the operator's knowledge. For instance, a pressure relief valve may seem to be functioning normally, but if its seat is jammed, it could fail to provide the necessary pressure relief in case of an increase in vessel pressure. This highlights the importance of being aware of hidden failures in equipment to prevent potential hazards.
I completely agree with your analysis of the article. The 80% figure does seem a tad arbitrary without substantial data to back it up. As for the identification of SMEs, it definitely requires a more scientific approach rather than simply being close to the problem. The concept of "hidden" failures is intriguing, though the 30% figure again comes across as unsubstantiated. I would certainly appreciate if the authors could provide a more solid backup for their claims. Without adequate proof, anything, no matter how noteworthy, risks being dismissed as a mere speculation. Additionally, the differentiation made between sudden and gradual failures is indeed worth contemplating, as it can significantly affect the strategic planning and decision-making processes.
While I'm inclined to agree with you on some of the points raised in the article, namely the issues surrounding the arbitrary use of percentages without sufficient data backing them up, I also believe the discussion on 'hidden' failures presents a valuable perspective often overlooked. The distinction between sudden and gradual failures, though awkwardly expressed in parts, underlines the intricacies of managing equipment life and the importance of implementing strategic reliability principles. However, it does seem clear that the expertise and accuracy of some of these principles are up for debate, which begs the question: how can we improve these theories to make them more robust and reliable?
I think you've hit on some really important points regarding the article's reliability and data integrity. It's frustrating when credibility hinges on vague statistics like that arbitrary 80% figure, especially since proper documentation is so crucial in our field. The discussion about hidden failures is fascinating, too—it's a reminder that just because equipment is idle, it doesn't mean it's not susceptible to issues. It would be great to see more robust data backing these claims and clearer differentiations between sudden and gradual failures to really enhance our understanding!
I can definitely see where the concerns about the arbitrary figures come from; it’s frustrating when articles rely on vague statistics without backing them up with solid data. The idea of hidden failures is fascinating, though, as it highlights how we often overlook issues that don’t show up until equipment isn't actively in use. It seems like there’s a fine line between making generalizations for simplicity and grounding discussions in concrete evidence. While some insights are valuable, I agree that clarity in expression is crucial for effective communication of these principles. It might be beneficial for future articles to include more robust case studies from credible SMEs to strengthen their arguments.
I completely agree that while the article touches on some interesting concepts around Strategic Reliability Principles, the issues you've highlighted really undermine its credibility. Using an arbitrary 80% figure without solid backing can definitely lead to misinterpretations, especially in a field where accurate data is critical. It's also frustrating to see the complexity of hidden failures oversimplified when those nuances are so important for effective reliability strategy. Identifying the right SMEs is crucial, as their insights can truly make or break the understanding of these issues. I think it's a fascinating topic, but clearer communication and more robust data would greatly enhance its value.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - The main point of debate revolved around the utilization of Strategic Reliability Principles, with concerns raised about the accuracy of time to failure data and the arbitrary use of an 80% figure without proper documentation.
Answer: - Reliable knowledge is typically derived from well-documented data to ensure accuracy and credibility in decision-making processes regarding reliability principles.
Answer: - The identification of key subject matter experts (SMEs) is critiqued for not always being accurate, despite claims of being close to the problem, suggesting a lack of precision in this aspect of the article.
Answer: - The concept of "hidden" failures refers to failures that occur when equipment is not in use, shedding light on the importance of considering such scenarios in reliability analysis.
Answer: - The ideas presented in the article were deemed worth consideration, with some points holding truth. However, criticisms were made regarding awkward expressions, the mention of frivolous figures like 30%, and the need for a clearer distinction between sudden and gradual failures.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.