{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Considering Reliability as an Issue for Six Sigma

Before defining reliability, it’s important to define failure.

Mark Crossley
Wed, 01/19/2005 - 22:00
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

When we discuss or mention Six Sigma, we almost always hear about getting defect rates down to 3.4 ppm. Consider a light bulb. How would you like to have a defect rate of 3.4 ppm only to find out that the bulb lasted just 20 hours before it burned out? This isn’t good, even though the Cpk was 1.50. The definition of quality relates to fitness for use, meeting the specification and the life of the product. That is, how long will it satisfy the customers’ needs? That’s reliability.

There are two major quality topics that concern the element of time. They’re statistical process control (SPC), which is how the process performs over time; and reliability, which is how long the product lasts. Reliability is the probability of mission success over a defined period of time, under a defined operating environment. Today it’s possible to substitute the word "cycles" in place of the word "time." But before defining reliability, it’s important to define failure. In the light bulb example, it’s simple: it either lights or it doesn’t. For more complex systems, the definition of failure isn’t as straightforward. What would be the definition of failure for human beings, for example?

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by Vladimir on Tue, 03/04/2025 - 01:14

Many inaccuracies

Hi, everybody! This paper could be very useful for practitioners, especially if not some inaccuracies.

1. MTBF=mean time between failures (not before). For unrecoverable units it's supposed to use MTTF=mean time to failure

2. Formula MTBF=exp(.) - see text - is wrong, 'cause MTBF means time, and exp(.) is dimensionless

3. The numbers in calculations are wrong. If acceleration factor=7,52, then activation energy will be close to 0.26 - in no way not 0.986   

Good Luck to All!

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us