TOTAL QUALM MANAGEMENT!

USING
mmm
 CHAPTER 4

TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT

USING RELIABILITY

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In earlier chapters we dealt with quality assurance and control and explored the notion or -
quality during the manufacture of the product or the rendering of a service. Our discussion
focused on a specific instant in time. In this chapter we examine the concept of reliability.

Reliability is a measure of the quality of the product over the long run. In here the concept
of reliability is an extended time period over with the expected operation of the product is
considered; that is we expect the product will function according to certain expectations
over a stipulated period of time.

To ensure customer satisfaction in the performance phase, we address measures to improve

reliability in the design phase. The complex nature of products requires many components
in their construction; thus we need to be able to calculate system reliability. With the
customer and warranty costs m mind, we must know the chances of successful operation of
the product for at least a certain stipulated period of time. Such information helps the
manufacturer to select the parameters of a warranty policy.

Reliability is the probability of product performing is intended function for a stated period of
time under certain specified conditions. Four aspects of reliability are apparent from this
definition. First, reliability is a probability-related concept; the numerical value of this
probability is between 0 and 1. Second, the functional performance of the product has to
meet certain stipulations. Product design will usually ensure development of a product that
meets or exceeds the stipulated requirements. For example, .if the breaking strength of a
nylon cord is expected to be 1000 kg, then in its operational phase, the cord must be able to
bear weights of 1000kg. Or more. Third, reliability implies successful operation over a
certain period of time. Although no product is expected to last forever, the time
requirement ensures satisfactory performance over at least a minimal stated period (say, 2
years). Fourth, operating or environmental conditions under which product use takes place
are specified. Thus, if the nylon cord is specified to be used under dry conditions indoors,
then satisfactory performance is expected for use under those conditions. In the context of
these four aspects, the reliability of the nylon cord might be described as having a
probability of successful performance of .92 in bearing loads of 1000 kg for 2 years under
dry conditions.

4.2 LIFE-CYCLE AND PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS IN MODELING RELIABILITY

Most products go through three distinct phase from product inception to wear-out. Figure
4.1 shows a typical life-cycle Curve for which the failure rate A is plotted as a function of
time. This curve is often referred to as the bathtub curve; it consists of the debugging phase,
th e c h a n c e -fa ilu re ph ase a n d th e w e a r -o u t p h a se (B e s te r fie ld 1 9 9 0 ; D e lM a r an d S h e ld o n
1 9 8 8 ; H a lp e rn 1 9 7 8 ). T h e d e b u g g in g ph ase, also k n o w n as th e in fa n t-m o r ta lity p h a se ,
exhibits a d ro p in th e fa ilu re ra te as in itia l p ro b le m s id e n tifie d d u rin g p ro to ty p e te s tin g a re
iro n e d o u t. T h e c h a n c e -fa ilu re ph ase, b e tw e e n tim e s t i and X.2 is th e n e n c o u n te re d ; fa ilu re s
o ccur ra n d o m ly an d in d e p e n d e n tly . This p h a se , in w h ic h th e fa ilu re ra te is c o n s ta n t,
typ ically re p re s e n ts th e usefu l life o f th e p ro d u c t. F o llo w in g th is is th e w e a r -o u t p h ase, in
w h ich an in cre a se in th e fa ilu re ra te is o b s e rv e d . H e re , a t th e e n d o f th e ir usefu l life , p a rts
ag e an d w e a r o u t

4.3 PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTIONS TO M O D EL FAILURE RATE

E x p o n e n tia l D is trib u tio n

T h e life-cycle cu rve o f Figure 4 1 sh o w s th e v a ria tio n o f th e fa ilu re ra te as a fu n c tio n o f tim e .
For th e c h a n c e -fa ilu re ph ase, w h ic h re p re s e n ts th e useful life o f th e p ro d u c t, th e fa ilu re ra te
is c o n stan t. As a re s u lt, th e e x p o n e n tia l d is tr ib u tio n can b e used to d e sc rib e th e tim e to
fa ilu re o f th e p ro d u c t fo r th is p h a se . In th e e a rlie r c h a p te r, th e e x p o n e n tia l d is trib u tio n w as
sh o w n a p ro b a b ility d e n s ity fu n c tio n given by

F{t) = X .r Mt > 0

W h e r e A d e n o te s th e fa ilu re ra te

T h e m e a n tim e o f fa ilu re (M T T F ) fo r th e e x p o n e n tia l d is trib u tio n w a s g iv e n as

M TIF = VX

Thus, if th e fa ilu re ra te is c o n s ta n t, th e m e a n tim e t o fa ilu re is th e re c ip ro c a l o f th e fa ilu re

ra te . For re p a ira b le e q u ip m e n t, th is is also e q u a l t o th e m e a n tim e b e tw e e n fa ilu re s (M T B F ).
T h e re w ill b e a d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n M TB F an d M T T F o n ly if th e r e is a sig n ific a n t re p a ir o r
re p la c e m e n t tim e u p o n fa ilu re o f th e p ro d u c t.

Chance failure Wear-out phase

Debugging phase phase
Failure rate (X)

T h e re lia b ility a t tim e t , R (t) is th e p ro b a b ility o f th e p ro d u c t las tin g up t o a t le a s t tim e t. It is

given by
R(t) 1 - F(t)
r 6 —X t

1 -1 dt At
Jo

Where F{t) represents the cumulative distribution function at time t. The cumulative
distribution function for the exponential distribution is shown in Figure 4.25 Figure 4 2
shows the reliability function. R(t) for the exponential failure distribution. At time 0, the
reliability is 1, as it should be. Reliability decreases exponentially with time. In general, the
failure-rate function r(t) is given by the ratio of the time-to-failure probability density
function to the reliability function. We have,

r(t) m
R{t)
For the exponential failure distribution

Ae
At
r(t):
-At
implying a constant failure rate, as mentioned earlier.

Example 4.1: An amplifier has an exponential time-to-failure distribution with a failure rate
of 8% per 1000 h. What is the reliability of the amplifier at 5000 h? Find the mean time to
failure.
Solution. The constant failure rate A is obtained as
A= 0.08/1000 h
A = 0.00008/h
The reliability at 5000 h is
-Xt
R(t)
(0 0 0 0 8 X 5 0 0 0 )
=e
_ -04

0.5703

89
The mean time to failure is

MTTF = 1 A - = 1 /0 00008 = 12.500 h

Weibull Distribution
The Weibull distribution is used to model the time to failure of products that have a varying
failure rate. It is therefore a candidate to model the debugging phase (failure rate decreases
with time), or the wear-out phase (failure rate increases with time) (Henley and Kumamoto
1981). The Weibull distribution was introduced in Chapter 3. It is a three-parameter
distribution whose density function is given in eq.(4.43) as

/<0= £
'w '

U i - y ^ exp
PS
!

t> y
a l « 2 .1 al
The parameters are a location parameter, y ( - < y < ), a scale parameter, a ( a - 0) and a
shape parameter P (P> 0). The probability density functions for y = 0, a - 1, and several
values o f P (P = 0.5,1,2 and 4) are shown in figure.

Appropriate parameters are used to model a wide variety o f situations. If y = 0 and P=1 the
weibull distribution reduces to the exponential distribution. For reliability modeling the
location parameter y will be zero. If a = 1 and p = 0.5 fo r example, the failure rate decreases
with time and can therefore be used to model components in the debugging phase.
Likewise, if a = 1 and p =3.5. the failure rate increases with time and so can be used to
model products in the wear-out phase In this case, the Weibull distribution approximates
the normal distribution.
The reliability function for the Weibull distribution is given by

ia
1
R(t) = exp -
a

The mean tim e to failure, as given by eq. (4.44) is

MTTF —a -+ 1
P
The failure-rate function r(t) for the Weibull tim e-to-failure probability distribution is

f(t) fit*-'
K0-
R(t) a/

Figure 4.3 shows the shape o f the failure-rate function for the Weibull failure density
function, for values of the parameter P o f 0.5,1 and 3.5.

90
 (3 = 3 5

P=1

Time (t)

Example 4.2 Capacitors in an electrical circuit have a time -to-faiiure distribution that case
be modeled by the Weibull distribution with a scale parameter of 400 h and a shape
parameter of 0.2. What is the reliability of the capacitor after 600 h of operation? Find the
mean time to failure. Is the failure rate increasing of decreasing with time?

Solution: The parameters of the weibull distribution are a - 400 h and (3 = 0.2. The location
parameter y is 0 for such reliability problems. The reliability after 600 h of operation is given
by

R(t) = exp -
a

=. 3381

The mean time to failure is

= 48000 h

The failure -rate function is

91
 ,. 0.2/°2-1
r ^ " (4 0 0)°2

= 0.0603t“ ° 8

This function decreases with time it would model components in the debugging phase.

4.4 SYSTEM RELIABILITY

Most products are made up of a number of components. The reliability of each component
and. the configuration of the system consisting of these components determines' the
system reliability (that is, the reliability of the product) Although product
design, manufacture, and maintenance influence reliability, improving reliability is largely
the domain of design. One common approach for increasing the reliability of the system is
through redundancy in design, which is usually achieved by placing components in parallel.
As long as one component operates the system operates. In this section we demonstrate
how to compute system reliability for systems that have components in series, in parallel, or
both.

Systems with Components in Series

Figure 4.4 shows a system with three components. (A, B and C) in series. For the system to
operate, each component must operate. It is assumed that the components operate
independently of each other (that is, the failure of one component has no influence on the
failure of any other component), in general, if there are n components in series, where the
reliability to the ith component is denoted by Ri, the system reliability is

Rs = Rix R2 X ... x Rn

The system reliability decreases as the number of components in series increases. Although
over design in each component improves reliability, its impact would be offset by the
number of components in series. Moreover, manufacturing capabilities and resource
limitations restrict the maximum reliability of any given component. Product redesign that
reduces the number of components in series is a viable alternative.

Use of the Exponential Model

If the system components can be assumed to have a time to failure given by the exponential
distribution and each component has a constant failure rate, we can compute the system
reliability, failure rate, and mean time to failure. As noted earlier, when the components are
in the chance-failure phase, the assumption of a constant failure rate could be justified.

Suppose the system has n components in series, each with exponentially distributed time-
to-failure with failure rate (Xi, X2 ... Xn ), The system reliability is found as the product of the
component reliabilities

Rs = e ' Altx e 41t x .....x e 4nt

Equation implies that the time to failure of the system is exponentially distributed with an

92
e q u iv a le n t fa ilu re ra te o f I = 1 A ,. Thus, if eac h c o m p o n e n t th a t fails is re p la c ed im m e d ia te ly
w ith a n o th e r th a t has th e s a m e fa ilu re ra te , th e m e a n tim e to fa ilu re fo r th e
system is given by

MTTF - — — -

2>
,=i

W h e n all c o m p o n e n ts in series h a v e an id e n tic a l fa ilu re ra te , say )c, th e M T T F fo r th e

system [a special case o f e q ] is given by.

E x a m p le 4 .3 : T h e a u to m a tic focus u n it o f a te le v is io n c a m e ra has 1 0 c o m p o n e n ts in series.

Each c o m p o n e n t has an e x p o n e n tia l tim e -to -fa ilu r e d is trib u tio n w ith a c o n s ta n t fa ilu re ra te
o f .0 5 p e r 4 0 0 0 h. W h a t is th e re lia b ility o f eac h c o m p o n e n t a fte r 2 0 0 0 h o f o p e ra tio n ? Find
th e re lia b ility o f th e a u to m a tic focus u n it fo r 2 0 0 0 h o f o p e ra tio n W h a t is its m e a n tim e - t o -
fa ilu re ?

S o lu tio n : T h e fa ilu re ra te fo r each c o m p o n e n t is

A = .0 5 /4 0 0 0 h
= 1 2 .5 - x 1 0 ~6/h

T h e re lia b ility o f eac h c o m p o n e n t a fte r 2 0 0 0 h o f o p e ra tio n is

R = e x p [-(1 2 .5 x 10"6)2 0 0 0 ]

= .9 7 5

T h e re lia b ility o f th e a u to m a tic focus u n it a fte r 2 0 0 0 h o f o p e ra tio n is

R = e x p [-( 1 0 x 10"6)2 0 0 0 ]
= .7 7 9

T h e m e a n tim e t o fa ilu re o f th e a u to m a tic fo cu s u n it is .

M T T F = 1 /( 1 0 x 1 2 5 x 1 0 ^ )
= 8000 h

E x a m p le 4 .4 : R e fe r t o E xa m p le 4 .3 c o n c e rn in g th e a u to m a tic focus o f a te le v is io n c a m e ra ,
w h ic h has 1 0 s im ila r c o m p o n e n ts in series. It is d e sire d fo r th e fo c u s u n it to h a v e a re lia b ility
o f .9 5 a fte r 2 0 0 0 h o f o p e ra tio n . W h a t w o u ld b e th e m e a n t im e to fa ilu re o f th e in d iv id u a l
c o m p o n e n ts ?

S o lu tio n : Let s be th e fa ilu re ra te o f th e focus u n it. T h e n , As = 1 0 A, w h e re A re p re s e n ts th e

fa ilu re ra te o f e a c h c o m p o n e n t. To a c h ie v e th e re lia b ility o f .9 5 a fte r 2 0 0 0 h, th e v a lu e o f As
is fo u n d fro m

93
 .95 = exp[ -As (2000)]

or

A s = 0.0000256/h

The failure rate for each component is

As =AS/1 0
= 0 00000256/h
= 2.56/106h

The mean time to failure for each component would be

MTTF = 1 / A
= 390,625h

Systems with Components in Parallel

System reliability can be improved by placing Components in Parallel. The components are
redundant; the system operates as long as at least one o f the components operates. The
only time the system fails is when all the parallel components fail. Figure 4.5 demonstrates
an example o f a system with three components (A, B, and C) in parallel. All components are
assumed to operate simultaneously. Examples of redundant components placed in parallel
to improve the reliability of the system abound. For instance, the braking mechanism is
critical system in the automobile. Dual subsystems thus exist so that if one fails, the brakes
still work.

Suppose we have n components in parallel, with the reliability of the ith component
denoted by R, , I - 1, 2......., n. Assuming that the components operate randomly and
independently of each other, the probability of failure of each component is given by F, —1.
- R, Now, the system fails only if all the components fail. Thus, the probability of system
failure is

Fs = (1 - Ri) (1 - R i). (1 - R„)

= it (1- R,)

The reliability of the system is the complement of Fs and is given by

Rs= 1 - Fs
= 1 - n (1- R.)

Use of the Exponential Model

If the time to failure of each component can be modeled by the exponential distribution,
each with a constant failure rate A„ i = l,...,n, the system reliability, as summing
independence of component operation, is given by

94
Rs = 1 - n (1- R,)
= 1 - it 1 - e*'

The time-to-failure distribution of the system is not exponentially distributed.

In the special case where all components have the same failure rate A, the system reliability
is given by

Rs= 1 - (1 - e -Kt )n

For this situation, the mean time to failure for the system with n identical components in
parallel, assuming that each failed component is immediately replaced by an identical
component, is given by

MTTF = — (1 + 1 /2 +1/3 + ......+ l/n)

A>

Example 4.5: For the system shown in Figure 4.5, determine the system reliability for 2000 h
of operation, and find the mean time to failure. Assume that all three components have an
identical time-to-failure distribution that is exponential with a constant failure rate of
0.0005/h. What is the mean time to failure of each component? If it is desired for the
system to have a mean time to failure of 4000 h. What should the mean time to failure be
for each component?

Solution: The failure rate of each component is A = 0.0005/h. For 2000 h of operation, the
system reliability is

Rs = 1 - {1 - exp[-(0.0005)2000]}3
= 1 - ( 63212)3
=0.7474

The mean time to failure for the system is

MTTF = — ?— (1 + 1 /2 + 1 /3 )
0.0005
= 3666.67 h

The mean time to failure for each component is

MTTF = — = — -—
1 0.0005
= 2000 h

By placing three identical components in parallel, the system MTTF has been increased by
about 83 3%.

For a desired system MTTF of 4000 h. we now calculate the required MTTF of the individual

95
components. We have

4000 = — (1 + 1/ 2 + 1 /3 )
X

Where A. is the failure rate for each component Solving A ,we get

A = 1.8333
4000
= 0.00046/ h

Thus, the MTTF for each component would have to be

= 2179 91h

Systems with Components in Series and in Parallel

Complex systems often consist of components that are both in series and in parallel.
Reliability calculations are based on the previously discussed concepts, assuming that the
components operate independently.

Example 4.6 : Find the reliability of the eight-component system shown in Figure 4.6; some
components are in series and some are in parallel The reliabilities of the components are as
follows: Rai=.92, Ra2=.90, Ra3 —.88, Ra4=.96, Rbi=.95, Rb2=-90, Rb3=.92 and Rci=.93.

Solution; We first find the reliabilities of each subsystem For the subsystem with
components Ai, A2, A3, and A4 the reliability is

Ri = 1 - ( 1 -R a i M ( 1 - R asRa4)
= 1 - [1 - (92)(,90)][1 - ( 88)(.96)]
= 9733

Similarly, the reliability of the subsystem with components Bi, B2, and B3 is

Rx = 1 - (1 - Rbi}(1 - RB2) (1 - Rb3)

= 1 - (1 - ,95)(1 - .90)(1 - .92)
= .9996

The system reliability is given by

Rs= Ri X R2 X R3
= (.9733)(.9996)(.93)
= .9048

Use of the Exponential Model

If the time to failure for each component can be assumed to be exponentially distributed,
the system reliability and mean time to failure can be calculated under certain conditions
using previously discussed procedures.

96
Exam ple 4 .7 : Find th e system failure rate and th e m ean tim e to failu re fo r th e eight
com ponent system shown in Figure 4 6 The fa ilu re rates (n u m b er o f units per hour) fo r th e
com ponents are as follows XAi= 0 0006, XA2 = 0 0 04 5 , Aa3 = 0 .0 0 3 5 , AA4= 0 .0 0 1 6 , XBi - 0 .0 0 60 ,
AB2 = 0 .0 0 6 0 , AB3 = 0 .0 0 6 0 ,.. Aa = 0 .0 0 50 .

S olution: First w e com pute failure rates fo r th e subsystems. W e have a failure rate o f (AAi +
AA2) = 0 .0 0 5 1 fo r th e A 1 /A 2 subsystem; fo r th e A 3 /A 4 subsystem, th e failu re rate is (AA3 +
Am ) = 0 .0 0 51 . T he m ean tim e to failu re fo r th e A 1/ A 2/A 3/A 4 subsystem is

1 \
MTTF1 1+ -
0.0051 .
2 94 .11 8 h

The m ean tim e to failure fo r th e subsystem consisting o f com ponents B i, B2, B3 is

1 ' 1 1
MTTF .L !+- +■
0.0060 v 2 3)
3 0 5 .5 5 5 h

The system failure rate is

1 1
A = ------------ + -------------- + 0.005
2 9 4 .1 1 8 3 05 .5 5 5

= 0 .0 1 1 6 7

The m ean tim e to failure fo r th e system is

MTTFs = 8 5 .6 9 h

Systems w ith Standby C om ponents

In a standby configuration, one o r m o re parallel com ponents w a it to ta k e o ver operatio n
upon failure o f th e currently o p eratin g com ponent. H ere, it is assumed th a t only one
com ponent in th e parallel configuration is o peratin g at any given tim e . Because o f this, th e

97
system reliability is higher than for comparable systems with components in parallel. In
parallel systems discussed previously, all components are assumed to operate
simultaneously: Figure 4.7 shows at standby system with a basic component and two
standby components in parallel. Typically a failure-sensing mechanism triggers the
operation of a standby component when the currently operating component fails.

Use of the Exponential Model

If the time to failure of the components is assumed to be exponential with failure rate A,
the number of failures in a certain time t adheres to a Poisson distribution with parameter
At, Using the Poisson distribution introduced the probability of x failures in time t is given by

x!

For a system that has a basic component in parallel with one standby component, the
system will be operational at time t, as long as there is no more than one failure. Therefore,
the system reliability would be

R = e Xt + e Xt (At )

For a standby system with a basic component and two standby components (shown in
Figure 4.7), the system will be operational if the number of failures is less than or equal to 2.
The system reliability is

R ,e* +e* a ) +e* W

I 2!

Basic
Component

In general, if there are n components on standby along with the basic component for a total
of (n + 1) components in the system] the system reliability is given by

98
 f n

At (A, ) 2 (A /
R =e 1+ A H---------- + ■+ ....+
s t 2! 3! nl
V

The mean time to failure for such a system is

MT7F^!±1
A

4.5 OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES

We have discussed OC curves for acceptance sampling plans in previous chapters. In this
section we discuss OC curves for life and reliability testing plans. A common life testing plan
involves choosing a sample of items from the batch and observing their operation for a
certain predetermined time. If the number of failure exceeds a stipulated acceptance
number, the lot is rejected; if number of failures is less than or equal to the acceptance
number, the lot is accepted. Two options are possible. In the first option, an item that fails is
replaced immediately by an identical item. In the second, failed items are not replaced.

In the calculations for OC curves, we assume that the time to failure of each item is
exponentially distributed with a constant failure rate A. The parameters of a life testing plan
are the test time T, the sample size n, and the acceptance number c. The OC curve shows
the probability of lot acceptance, P a, as a function of the lot quality as indicated by the
mean life { 0 ) or the mean time to failure of the item. Under the stated assumptions, the
number of failures within a specified period adheres to the Poisson distribution. The Poisson
distribution is used to calculate the probability of lot acceptance.

APPLICATION OF RELIABILITY

4.6 RELIABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY IN TELECOMMUNICATION

EQUIPMENTS

Reliability is today an important parameter for Telecommunication equipments. With

reliable equipment the maintenance cost as well as traffic, losses will be reduced and the
overall economy of the system will be increased. Further, the availability equipment is a
function of reliability and maintenance. With a high reliability the failure rate will reduce.
The availability will therefore increase and the maintenance efforts can be reduced. The
reduced repair time results in increased availability. A design that makes possible simple and
rapid fault location and restoration by use of available spare units will reduce time
considerably. However a well planned and organized stock of spares is an imperative
necessity. High equipment reliability and maintainability will permit more unattended
stations and require fewer inspections in the Network. This together with adequately
planned and located stock of spares, reduces the need for many qualified personnel and
maintenance supports.

99
This study intends to present in detail the various factors as,mentioned earlier involved in
the Reliability and Maintainability of Telecommunication equipments. It is well-known that
reliability is the probability that a system or equipment or component will perform the
required functions under specified conditions for a specified length of time without
degradation of failure. A lot of thinking has gone into the subject of reliability and
considerable work also done resulting in various specifications and standards such as the
Mentally Specification and Standard (MIL). International! Electrochemical Commission
Standard (IEC Standard) and the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS). These standards are useful
in assessing the reliability of the equipments/systems by performing reliability
demonstration tests.

RELIABILITY

The reliability R(t) is given 'by

co

R(t)= epl(t)dt
o
Figure 1 shows how the failure rate A(t ) varies with time for an electronic equipment. As
can be seen in the figure the failure rate is divided into three general patterns.

A. Initial failure period.

B. Normal operating period. C. Wear out period
C. Wear out period.

-S'
co
<
uL>
13
CO
u_

TIME (t)
This is called the bathtub curve. The failure rate decrease sharply during the early stages of
service and then enters the so called "constant failure intensity period", during which
failures occur only occasionally.

O P T IM U M RELIABILITY
The reliability requirements are very high in such applications where repair and
maintenance are not all possible e.g. space applications. But in the field of
telecommunications where repair and maintenance activities are possible the reliability
requirements can be made optimum with the costs involved in the design, production and

100
 maintenance of any electronic equipment. Fig. 2 shows such an optimum condition.

Maintenance
and other
COSTS

cost

RELIABILITY------------------------------------

As it can see design and production costs increases with increase in reliability of the
equipment while the maintenance deceases. An optimum figure for reliability can be
obtained as in Fig. 2.

AVAILABILITY AND MAINTAINABILITY

The more useful definitions connected with telecommunication applications are the
availability and maintainability, The reliability of a system is, of course, totally dependent on
the reliability of the constituent parts, The extent to which we can depend on system is
enhanced when (i) each component is failure free and (ii) it is promptly repaired when it
encounters any failure. The extent to which a system 'can be used as required is called its
"Availability". The quantification for the system unavailability is made in terms of equipment
reliability and that for the repair, in terms of MTTR = Mean Time To Repair.
A = 1 - UA
When a system fails completely, it is not available totally for use. Flowever, a definition is
required to determine the degree of quality degradation that constitutes unavailability. For
example, in digital systems (as per CCITT recommendation) a period of unavailability begins
when the bit error ratio in each second is more than 1 x 10 Exp(-3) for a period of 1-
consecutive second, These ten seconds constitute the unavailable time, The period of
unavailability terminates once this condition is improved,

For system planning, we do not require such a strict definition, At this stage value for
unavailability is obtained from the system failure,

UA = MTTR
MTBF + MTTR

This is the ratio of the mean repair time (or mean unavailable time) to the duty time, When
the value of MTBF is large and that of MTTR is small, the availability will increase as
Availability = 1 minus Unavailability,

101
MTTR is given in hours. This is a function of maintenance efficiency or the complicity of the
fault To reduce MTTR an effective and efficient maintenance support must be available, A
mathematical relationship can be given relating duty time (t), time allowed for maintenance
(T), Reliability R(t), Maintainability M(t), and Availability A(T, t) as follows

A (t, T) = R(t) + [1 - R(t)] M(T)

Fig- 3 shows these relationships

Since for telecom applications availability of the equipment is the equipment is the mam
criteria, even with the equipment having reliability of the order of 0.9, availability of the
equipment can be achieved to the higher order by improving the maintenance techniques

4.7 RELIABILITY AND COST ANALYSIS IN PAPER INDUSTRY

In industrial sector it is always desired that each equipment must be operative for long time
to give maximum output and hence profit to the industry. Under given operative conditions
the behavior analysis of each equipment may help in improving the system design and
maintenance planning.

In paper industry, we have various systems, viz., chipping, feeding, pulp formation, washing,
bleaching, screening, paper formation and collection. The important functionary part, which
produces brightness in paper, is the bleaching system. In paper industry, chips from storage
are fed into digester [1,2,3] to form the pulp, which is processed through washing system
[4,5] The washed pulp is kept in a chamber where chlorine, at controlled rate, is passed
through the pulp for few hours. The pulp is passed over filter over filter and opener in two
stages to get chlorine free white-pulp. The pulp so obtained is sent to the screening section
for final section for final cleaning of the pulp. This paper discusses the behavior of the
various equipment's used in bleaching system.

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The bleaching system has four subsystems xi , yi (i = 1,2, j = 1,2 of the same nature and
capacity)
The subsystem (Xi) called filter consists of two units and is said to be in failed state (due to
fall in quality) when one unit fails;
The subsystem (Yi) called opener, consists of two units and is said to be in failed state (due
to fall in quality) when one unit fails.

X, is in series with y l, y2 is in series with y2 while X I, Y I are in series with X2, Y2

ASSUMPTION AND NOTATIONS

(i) Failure rates are constants and statistically independent, (ii) units are repaired only when
system f3ils, (iii) a repaired unit is as good as new, (iv) unit repair time are arbitrary, (v) each
subsystem has separate repair facility, (vii) there is no waiting time in the system, (viii)
service includes repair and / or replacement, (ix) there is no simultaneous failure of units.
The symbols associated are:

102
Xi, Yj , 1= 1,2 j = 1,2 : Capital letters indicates good state of units while small letters indicate
the failed state.

a l, a2: Respective constant failure rates of subsystem Xi, and Yj,.

p l(z l), 32 (z2): Respective repair rates of subsystem Xi, and Yj

P0(t): Probability that at time °t' system is working in full capacity 'O' is replaced by 1,2,3,4
for respective failed state probabilities.

Dash on P represents the first derivative of the probabilities. Limit of integration is taken
from 0 to ° ° .
Transition diagram for the system is given as:

ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM

Differential equations associated with the transition diagram are:

P i (0 = 2£ a P Q( 0 =£ Jp, (Z , , 0 A (Z 5)dzx+ X JP j(Z2, t)p2(Z2)dz2 1

/= ] 1=1 j=1

_0
Pi(Zj,t) =0
d. + aT+^

With initial and boundary conditions

P0 (0) = 1 otherwise = 0 ;
Pi (0,t) = a :,P0 (t) (i = 1,2; i = 2, ,j = 3,4) ........... 2

Integrating the above system of equations under given conditions the solutions, hence
reliability is given by

R(t) = Po (t)

103
 2(al + a l ) t N{t)e 2 ( « i +£Z 2 > +1 3

W h ere

N (t) = Xi (t) + X2 (t) + X3 (t) + X4 (t),

x.

P}( Z , , / ) = a,P0 t - z , e x p ( - J Px(Z , )dzx + 1 )

(j = 1/2 ; i = 2, ,j = 3 ,4 , i =2)

PA R TIC U LA R CASE

The o p erative conditions fo r a particular industry are planned and repair facilities are
produced depending upon w o rkers availability and skillness ie., constant repair fo r each
eq u ip m en t, th e n
R(t) o f th e system is given by

+ a 2fi2 Je ^ (PQ(t))e^2 td (t)e2{GCi + )l dt A

In process industry each e q u ip m en t m ust rem ain o p erative fo r a long tim e , hence steady

s tate availability o f th e system is calculated, by putting — ~>t as t —><x> and using

dt
norm alizing condition, w e g et

<2A J l 2A j
and m ean tim e to system failure is given by

MTSF - +2«2

Example
Taking P i = p2 = 0.2

104
 Table 1
Effect o f Failure Rate

a i= 0.0 a2 = 0 05 02= 0.1

ai

A MTSF A MTSF A MTSF

0 1.0 25 8 16.6 .5 12.5
05 .67 16.6 .5 12.5 .4 10.0

0 1 .50 12 5 .4 10.0 .33 8.3

Table 2
Effect o f Repair Rate
(Taking O i=0.03, a 2=,02)

Pi p2= o .i p 2 = 0.3 P z= 0 .5

A MTSF A MTSF A MTSF

.1 .50 50 .577 19 2 595 11.9
.3 .63 20.8 .750 8.3 .781 5.2
.5 .66 13.2 .798 5.4 .833 3.3

Table 1 and 2 show th a t fa ilu re and re p a ir rate o f X, has m ore e ffe ct upon system a va ila b ility
th a n Y, fa ilu re and re p a ir rates, w h ile MTSF is affe cted equally, i e. X, requires m ore
a tte n tio n th a n Y, keeping in v ie w cost constraints, re p a ir is arranged fo r m in im u m fa ilu re in
th e system .

COST FUNCTION

Taking c o n sta n t re p a ir ra te and solving e q u a tio n (4), w e g e t R(t) as fo llo w s :

R (t)^ G Q + G l e
-<V1 + G 2 e - V2 - ............5

s. ± s 2 —4 s 2
0,2 = - L -
~2

P1P2
G0 =
2

E i - P i + P2 + 2 ( a i + 0 2 ) ;

e2 - P1P2+ 2 oiP2 + 2 02 p i ;

105
q _ + (P\ + 02W\ + P\ A
0 W , - ^ 2)

£ __ 6 \ + ( P \ + P i )® 2 + A A?
0 ACA^,)
If service facility is always available, it rem ains busy fo r t i m e 't ' during th e interval (o ,t). Let
Cx and C 2 are revenue per unit tim e and service cost per unit tim e respectively, th e n th e
profit function H(t) fo r interval (0 ,t) is given by

H(t)=C, jR(t)dt - C2/ ...........6

o

dH(t) n
Putting ----------- = 0 w e get
dt

{n e l + d2)
log P l G2<Cl G0 “ C2> i
a

d 2H{t)
Putting gives positive f o r 't' i.e. H (t) is m in im u m f o r 't ' given by (7)
Dt2

Table 3
Profit Function
(Taking a j= 03, a 2= 0 2 3 x= p2 = -2)

t R(t) G (t)

0 .0 1.0 0.1

2 0 .0 0 .6 6 7 13.23

4 0 .0 0 .6 6 6 7 26.57

6 0 .0 666 6 7 3 9 .9 0

8 0 .0 .66 6 66 5 3.2 3

1 00 .0 .66 6 66 6 6.5 7

For given values o f failure and re p air rates, Table 3 gives th e reliability and p ro fit function,
which indicate th a t th e reliability o f th e system reaches to a constant value a fte r a certain
period w h ile th e p ro fit function increases. If it is run fo r a long tim e , it m ay give considerable
p ro fit under favorable conditions.

106
4.8 BAYESIAN RELIABILITY ANALYSIS FOR AN OUTLIER MODEL

This study considers the Bayesian reliability analysis for an exponential failure model on the
basis of some ordered observations in the presence of a very "early failure", which is
suspected to be a possible "outlier". Bayes estimators of the mean life and reliability are
obtained under the assumption of a suitable parametric outlier model, squared error loss
function, and suitable prior densities of the parameters involved.

INTRODUCTION

In a study of Bhattacharya and Singh (1979) as well as Bhattacharya and Tyagi (1989), the
problem of reliability estimation based on a first few ordered observations from the
exponential distribution for situations when the first failure occurs at a very early stage of a
life test and is suspected to be an "early failure" or ; an "outlier", was studied under the
assumption of a suitable parametric model. This parametric outlier model was referred to as
the "SB model" in a subsequent paper of Bhauacharya and Singh (1986), wherein the case
when multiple outliers may be present, was also discussed. In this context the paper of
Gather and Kale (1981) may also be mentioned. The Bayesian reliability analysis for the SB
model was later studied by Bhaitacharya and Singh (1988). The results of this last mentioned
paper are somewhat simplified here by assuming different prior densities.
The SB model for a single outlier is described clearly in the paper of Bhattacharya and Singh
(1988) and we retain all the assumptions of that paper except that the nuisance parameter
v there in is now assumed to have a generalized uniform prior (cf. Bhattacharya, 1967)
given by the pdf

g(v) = ( \ - b ) v - b(0 < v < l ; 0 < b < l ) ........ 1

It is assumed that v ad the scale 9 of the exponential failure model are a priori independent.
From (1), it is that g(v) decreases when v moves away from zero towards unity, so that the
probability that the observation with the mean 9 vis the smallest observation will be large.
This is compatible with assumptions of Bhauacharya and Singh (1988) and the labeled
slippage model of Barnett and Lewis (1978,p.37). The contribution of the present paper is
summarized below:

A: THE BAYES ESTIMATOR OF THE MEAN LIFE:

From Bhauacharya and Singh (1988), the join pdf of the observations for the SB model
(single outlier) is given by

f i * v x 2> xr Iv,e) = ^ ^ d - r {{n-\) + v - l } ^ V{--e-l [T + v - lxl \} ............2

where

107
0<x, <x. < xr < oo;0 < 9 < oo,0 < v < 1) . .3

T- ]T x , +{n-r)x, ...4
\ i =i /

It may be noted th a t the statistics T is not the usual Epstein-Sobel (1953) statistics
representing the total tim e on test in the homogeneous case. Given the observed data,
the expression (2) can be considered as a function o f (9,v), and when it is the likelihood
l((9,v), so that we have:

l((9,v)a9 —r (n —l) + v~ . expj - 9" T + v *x, (0 < 9 < oo;0 < v < 1) 5

Now the jo in t prior density g(9,v) is given by

g(9 ,y )a v ~^ 9 ^ + (0 < # < go; 0 < v'< 1 ) 6

so that the Bayesian posterior density %*(9,v) is obtained as

g * (9,v) = h ( 9 , v ) f |° I(9)d9 (0<9<oo;0<v<l) 7

where

h(9, v) = - h 0 - { r + p + 1) ( « - ! ) + v" exp(-0 /.i + T + v *x.

(0 < 9 < co;0< v < 1) 8
and
1(9) = | h(9, v,)dv, (0 < 9 < co) 9

Hence, the marginal posterior density of 9 is given by

g*(9,v) = 1(9)1 ^ I ( 9 ) d 9 (0 < 9 < oo) ........... 10

A

under the assumption o f the squared error loss function, the Bayes estimation 9 of 6 is
simply the posterior expectation o f (10) and is given by

9 = §I(9)d9l §I(9)d9 ........... 11

From (8) and (9), it can be seen that

1(9) = e -{T^ )ie9~(r+p+l){ ( n - l ) ( 9 1 x x) ^ T ( b - l ) , x xi e \

+ (9!x,)bY( b ,x J 9 ) (0<9<oo) ......... 12

108
T(a,p)= ^ e ' f - ' d t (Y > 0 ) ............ 13

R ep resen ts a n d in c o m p le te g a m m a fu n c tio n . It m a y be p o in te d o u t th a t fo r y > 0 , w e do n o t

n e e d th e usual c o n d itio n a > 0 re q u ire d fo r th e c o n v e rg e n c e o f th e c o m p le te g a m m a in te g ra l.

N o w th e exp ression fo r 1(0} fro m (1 2 ) can be s u b s titu te d in (1 1 ), w h e re in th e n u m e ra to r N

an d th e d e n o m in a to r D can b e e v a lu a te d by using th e fo llo w in g Laplace tra n s fo rm
(c.f.E rd elyi e t al 1 9 5 3 b , p .1 3 8 , fo rm u la 8 ) o f th e in c o m p le te g a m m a fu n c tio n :

|° e-Slt M T{ a,i)d t = {r (a + p ) l p { 1 + S)a*fi }.2 F , [l,a + fi;P + 1 , 5 / ( I + S)]

........... 1 4

W h e re 2 i is th e Gauss h y p e r g e o m e tric fu n c tio n (cf. Erdelyi e t al, 1 9 5 3 a ), p ro v id e d

th a t th e fo llo w in g c o n d itio n h o ld ;

Rep > 0 , R e (a + P ) > 0 ReS > - 1 / 2 15

T h e C o n d itio n s m e n tio n e d a t (1 5 ) h o ld g o o d fo r all th e in te rn a l e v a lu a te d in th is p a p e r by

using th e Laplace in te g ra l (1 4 ), if w e m a k e th e fo llo w in g a s s u m p tio n :

( r ^ 3) ..............16

This c o n d itio n is in n o w a y to o re s tric tiv e N o w by using (1 4 ) w e o b ta in e d th e fo llo w in g

expressions fo r th e n u m e ra to r a n d th e d e n o m in a to r re s p e c tiv e ly in (1 1 ):

N={ r( , r + p - l ) / ( x , + T + My t ' - % ~ l ) ( r + p - b r ‘2F,[hr + p - l ; r + p - b + l;Z)}

+ (r + p - b-)~' 2Fx[ l , r + p ~ l ; r + p - b + V,Z)\ ..............17

D = {f(r + p)!{xx+T + p )r+p}.{(«-1 )(r + p - b y ' 2Fx[l,r + p - b + 2;Z]

+ (r + p - b y 12F , [ l , r + p;r + p - b + % z \ ..............1 8

W h e re

Z =(T + |i) / { X i + T + p ) ..............1 9

In a s im ila r m a n n e r, w e can e v a lu a te th e in te g ra l

109
|° 0 2l{6)d6 = ^ ( r + p - 2 ) / ( jc , +T + p Y +p~2}.(« - l) ( r + p - b - 1)~‘ 2F ,[l,r + p ~ 2 ; r + p ~ b; Z )]

+ (r + p - b —2) 12F][l, r + p - 2;r + p - b —1;Z )] 20

Hence, the Bayes estimator (0) can be obtained from (11) by substituting from (17) and (18)
The variance of the posterior distribution g * (0 ) is then obtained by using the formula

V = 0 2l ( 0 ) d 0 / ^ I ( 0 ) d 0 - ( 0 ) 2 ........... 21

In conjunction with (11), (18) and (20)

B: BAYESIYAN RELIABILITY ESTIMATION

The reliability function for the exponential failure model considered here, fo r a prescribed
"mission tim e" t>0, is given by

R = Re( t ) ^ e ~ ,/0 ........22

Under the assumption o f the squared error loss function, the Bayes estimator (R) of the
reliability function R is simply the posterior expectation o f e~lld with respect to . Hence, we
obtained:

R= J° e~"9 11{0)d0i |° I( 0)d 0 ..........23

The integral in the numerator is evaluated by using (12) and (14). Thus, we obtain:

|° e - ,eI{0)d0 = { r ( r + p) /(*, + T + / + p ) r*p }((» - l)(r + p - b - 1)'12F, [l, r + p - 2; r + p - b + 2; Z ’)]

+ (r + p ~ b ) I 2i 'j [ l , r + />;r + /> - 6 + l; Z ') ] ........... 24

Z'=(T + 1 + g) / (xi + T + g) ........... 25

In a similar manner, we can evaluate the integral

| ° e-"eI(0)d0 = ) r ( r + p)/(xi + T + t + p ) r+P} • ( « - + p - b - 1)“’ 2Ft [l ,r + p;r + p - b + 2; Z ’)]

+ (r + p - b ) ~ l 2Z7! [ l , + p',r + p —b + l\Z')\ ...........26

110
where

Z"=(T + 2t + n) / (xi + T + 2t + |i) 27

Substitution of (18) and (24) in (23) leads to the Bayes estimator (i?)of reliability. The
variance of the posterior distribution of reliability is then obtained by using the formula

r = J° e '1" 0 II{6 )d 0 l J51{0)d0 - ( R f ............28

In conjunction with (23),(18) and (26). It may be noted that the results of this paper for b = 0
coincide with those of the paper of Bhattacharya and Singh (1988) for m = l and
Bhattacharya and Tyagi (1989)

4.9 METHODS FOR QUALITY AND RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT

The demand of users for perfection is probably more than it has been ever before. This
is due to increased awareness of product Quality all round. Quality awareness and control
of Quality must begin when the product is conceived and should not end until the
product-end performance is evaluated by Users. The control of Quality; should be
extended to become a part and parcel in all phases, the product undergoes. The problem
in Defense Industry is that although we have certain level of product Quality, we have not
kept pace with the expectations and demands of Users, which can only be achieved through
total involvement and commitment of everyone in achieving the ultimate Quality goal.
Perfection in Quality leads to Reliability.

Defense Industry is now faced with problems of indigenization of various imported equipment
systems, to achieve self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Defense equipments have certain
peculiar and special features, distinct from commercial requirement. These systems encompass
sophisticated, complex and multi-disciplinary components, depending upon the role; the
system has to play in war. To m eet the demands of User, need has arisen to divert
indigenization of certain components to civil-sector, which has now sufficient capacity
and infrastructure.

Methods to achieve this perfection in Quality, coupled with Reliability, as applicable to

Defense Industry are presented in this paper, which will also cover an ideal organization
that ensures Quality and Reliability of products, used by Users.

INTRODUCTION
To match the capacity of the potential enemy, as well as to keep pace with fast changes
in Defense Technology, ''Modernization of Defense Services" has become the need of
the hour. Based on the tactical roles. General Staff (GS) projects his requirements,
known as GS Quality Requirements (GSQR) coupled with GS Policy Statements, which
specify the conditions and constraints of Defense Weapons, Equipments, and Systems.
The GSQR is translated into technical specification for indigenous development and

111
subsequent production. The GS demands are met either by indigenous development or
by import or by indigenous development of imported Defense Weapons, Equipments
and Systems or a combination of these Three organizations namely Research and
Development (R&D), Quality Assurance (QA) and Ordinance Factory Board (QFB) are
involved in indigenization. Need has arisen to divert indigenization of certain
components/sub-systems to civil-sector viz, Public and Private Sectors, so as to avoid
foreign exchange and fresh investment involved in import and in creation of additional
facilities in Ordinance Factories (OFys) respectively Indigenization of various imported
equipment systems in Defense Industry is to achieve self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
Defense equipment has certain peculiar sad special features, distinct from commercial
requirements. These systems encompass sophisticated, complex and multi-disciplinary
components, depending on tactical role; the system has to play in War. Indigenization in
civil-sector, which has how sufficient capacity and infrastructure, rest with QA, whereas
in OFys, with OFB, who forms Task-Forces (TF), chaired by General Managers and
composed of representatives form QA and R&D, the effective contribution of latter
being little to the Quality-goal. These TF are entrusted with either indigenization of a
component or a system of a product. While indigenization of system components may
theoretically be tenable, there arises a question whether the product, assembled with
indigenized individual components can result in indigenization o f the product, m the
absence of system-integration.

Further the undue weightage given to OFB, in formation of TF, generally results in
primary obsession with the development and establishment o f production and the
successful clearance of developmental batches, relegating the Quality and Reliability
aspects over the long run to the background. The present thinking of TF that Quality and
Reliability can be injected into the product at a later stage is misplaced and is likely to
land the indigenization project back to square one, when User encounters absence of
Quality and Reliability and insist on these. This policy also leads to perpetual
concessions/deviations in the process at the conceptual stageitseif.

Methods to achieve product Quality and Reliability in Defense Industry are presented in
this paper, which reviews the functional responsibilities of organizations involved in
indigenisation.

QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)

Inspection and QA are basically managerial techniques fo r achieving specific objects, but
they do differ in activity. Prior to QA era, when major activity was inspection, and
Quality control was done by a group o f specialised Statisticians, the Inspector was only
concerned, w ith Quality of "Conformance". But era of QA ensures; Products going to
User conform exactly to their explicit and implicit requirements. Minimised Quality-Cost
and covers the fields of Design, Material purchase, production improvement and
inspection Frame-work. Methods such as Quality Control Circle, Zero Defects
Programme and Quality Assurance Policy, coupled with well defined schemes do
improve Quality of the products to some extent, but not the Quality, non-inherent in
design.

112
RELIABILITY ASSURANCE (RA)
Reliability Assurance is another basic managerial technique for achieving the desired
degree of Reliability of a Product Statistical Methods provide a valuable tool for
reliability engineers, but the achievement of Reliability depends primarily on sound
engineering principles and techniques; in conjunction with managerial methods. The
main elements of RA are concerned with technical specification, planning, prediction,
development testing, verification and the feedback of the field-data.

MODERN QUALITY ASSURANCE (M Q A )

The concept of MQA is to achieve Quality and Reliability with reference to cost. If the
Quality of product is defined as relative goodness in fulfilling its purpose, then Reliability
is the probability of the product, performing its intended role adequately for a period of
time. Intended under operating conditions either encountered or for which it is designed
to operate; Both Quality and Reliability must be considered with reference to time to
achieve and in turn production cost Quality in design is nothing but maturity of design,
which possesses a high, degree of-inherent Reliability and depends upon the expertise
and foresight of the designer and upon the adequate development. Thus Quality is easy
to specify and testify than Reliability, the measurement of which needs length of time.
As such there is always a danger of giving less importance to Reliability, because in
pertains to future, rather than present and the difficulties, encountered in measuring
the same to any reasonable accuracy. The Quality in material purchase and in
production improvement is a function of product testing that integrates the theory and
design with eventual production. Reliability can be interpreted as RELIABILITY and RE
and LIABILITY. "Explosive Products" such as projectiles, propelling and lethal charges,
ignition systems and mines that can be used ONLY ONCE fall under former category,
whereas latter category covers all other "Non-Explosive" devices that can be used again
and again. Explosive products are not consumed immediately after manufacture, but
these have to withstand varying climatic storage conditions and are to be ensured all
time SAFE to transport, handling and instant-use. Whereas non-explosive devices
require proper maintenance, assuming the reliability of interaction of these. As the
activity of Reliability is different, it is essential to incorporate data from test and
evaluation function in design to improve Quality and Reliability. The evaluation function
encompasses continuous assessment and assimilation of production control and
process, procedures for test and evaluation, feed-back information on failures and
design-weaknesses.

Improvement in Quality demands Quality-awareness and control of Quality, whereas

proper planning and implementation procedures can contribute to effective
improvement of Reliability. Quality-Awareness is defined as a continuous
communication process, which informs everyone, associated with product indigenisation
from conception lo consumption, as to where the current product falls short, whereas
control of Quality is denned as everyone's' responsibility. Quality of a product can only
be achieved through total involvement and commitment of everyone in achieving
Quality Goal, the setting of which, before design phase must be encouraged by
management by providing an environment for its execution. All areas of activities must
participate in defining and establishing the Quality-goal, without which it cannot be

113
achieved due to conflicting individual disciplines/department's goal. In case any area
cannot live up to its commitment, the other areas are to be notified to facilitate
development of alternative. The overall Quality-goal is made up of each
discipline's/department's individual Quality-goal

The salient factors that determine and ensure product Quality and Reliability are Design,
Materials, Manufacturing process and people.

DESIGN
Most of the potential product problems of Quality and reliability can be identified and
avoided in the design phase, by establishing a close-working relationship and
coordination among specialists and engineers of Design, QA, RA, Manufacturer,
Production control and User. This relationship ensures that the design is compatible with
indigenous resources, as well as with available plant facilities and manufacturing
process; the indigenous product-design can be built at desired Quality and Reliability
level as well as any potential problems of mal-assemblies are designed out: In short, the
design activity should co-ordinate all other activities and review before the design has
taken the final shape for pilot-production.

MATERIALS
To minimise "Differential Variation" due to change of either indigenous or imported
materials or sources or processes all materials needed for indigenisation o f product
should be tested at a central laboratory, created discipline-wise and approved before
their actual use, both in developing and bulk production phases, In case of materials for
explosive product indigenisation, the Ingredients, their sources processes by which
these ingredients are manufactured and their effect on functional aspects, coupled with
shelf-fife, should be estimated and established during development phase The
production control engineer/specialist should be guided by design, QA and RA
engineers/speciahsts.

M ANUFACTURING PROCESS
Manufacturer must develop the plant-process compatible to the product-design, to
ensure consistent Quality-level and degree of Reliability, taking into account the
capability and capacity of existing plant-process Marginal manufacturing process can
produce the desired Quality through the use of "80 percent concept" which allows to
use only 80 percent of specification, for which the process-gauges and check-devices are
provided, to facilitate immediate corrective action. The anticipated process-problems,
both in pilot and bulk production should be spotted and avoided with the assistance of
specialists/engineers of other activities.

PEOPLE
People are the key element in Design, Materials section, Manufacturing processes,
testing and evaluation phases o f product development cycle. Adequate training to
perform operations ensures expected Quality level. Quality-awareness communication
encourages people's involvement in the control of Quality, leading to "Participative
Management" and "Self-motivation".

114
A product to be indigenised may be multi-disciplinary. In such cases, separate sub-
projects are to be allotted discipline-wise, whereas main product-project should be
coordinated by system-integration. In all these projects and sub-projects, the design
engineer/specialist should be the chairman, comprising specialists/engineers from QA,
RA, Manufacturing process, Production control and test-evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Reliability Assurance is part and parcel of Quality Assurance Both Quality and Reliability
are in-built-in product design. Improvement of inherent Quality and Reliability of a
product rests with designer, whereas ensuring these parameters rests with production
and QA organizations. The amount of effort and expenditure devoted to improve both
Quality and Reliability depends on many factors including overall cost, safety and
operational conditions. As such both Quality and Reliability should be planned in detail
from the specification stage, throughout development and production, as well as during
shelf-life of product. For this purpose a product-project team, chaired and co-ordinated
by Designer with the active involvement and cooperation of other organizations should
be formed, as well as central testing and evaluation facilities should be created. In nut
shell, restructuring of the project teams and the review of the responsibility and
functional activity of each organization, along with creation of centralised test
evaluation facilities is the need of the hour for successful indigenisation.

115