You are on page 1of 177

The following presentation materials

are copyright protected property of


Ops A La Carte LLC.

1
How to Move from HALT
to HASS to HASA
for

by
Mike Silverman, CRE
Managing Partner, Ops A La Carte LLC
mikes@opsalacarte.com // www.opsalacarte.com // (408) 472-3889

2
Presenter Biography
• Mike is founder and managing partner at Ops A La Carte, a Professional Consulting Company
that has in intense focus on helping customers with end-to-end reliability. Through Ops A
La Carte, Mike has had extensive experience as a consultant to high-tech companies, and
has consulted for over 125 companies including Cisco, Ciena, Siemens, Abbott Labs, and
Applied Materials. He has consulted in a variety of different industries including power
electronics, telecommunications, networking, medical, semiconductor, semiconductor
equipment, consumer electronics, and defense.

• Mike has 20 years of reliability and quality experience. He is also an expert in accelerated
reliability techniques, including HALT&HASS, testing over 500 products for 100 companies
in 40 different industries. Mike has authored and published 7 papers on reliability techniques
and has presented these around the world including China, Germany, and Canada. He has
also developed and currently teaches 10 courses on reliability techniques.

• 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), IEEE, and Effective Training Associates. Mike is a
member of ASQ, IEEE, SME, ASME, PATCA, and IEEE Consulting Society and is an officer
in the IEEE Reliability Society for Silicon Valley.

3
Ops A La Carte assists clients in developing and executing any and all elements of Reliability through
the Product Life Cycle.

Ops A La Carte has the unique ability to assess a product and understand the key reliability elements
necessary to measure/improve product performance and customer satisfaction.

Ops A La Carte pioneered “Reliability Integration" – using multiple tools in conjunction throughout
each client's organization to greatly increase the power and value of any Reliability Program.
4
Ops A La Carte Services

Reliability Integration in the Concept Phase


1. Benchmarking
2. Gap Analysis
3. Reliability Program and Integration Plan Development

Reliability Integration in the Design Phase


1. Reliability Modeling and Predictions
2. Derating Analysis/Component Selection
3. Tolerance/Worst Case Analysis/Design of Experiments
4. Risk Management / Failure Modes, Effects, & Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
5. Fault Tree Analysis (FTA)
6. Human Factors/Maintainability/Preventive Maintenance Analysis
7. Software Reliability

5
Ops A La Carte Services, continued

Reliability Integration in the Prototype Phase


1. Reliability Test Plan Development
2. Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT)
3. Design Verification Testing (DVT)
4. Reliability Demonstration Testing
5. Failure Analysis Process Setup

Reliability Integration in the Manufacturing Phase


1. Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS)
2. On-Going Reliability Testing
3. Repair Depot Setup
4. Field Failure Tracking System Setup
5. Reliability Performance Reporting
6. End-of-Life Assessment

6
Ops A La Carte Services, continued
Reliability Training/Seminars
1. Reliability Tools and Integration for Overall Reliability Programs
2. Reliability Tools and Integration in the Concept Phase
3. Reliability Tools and Integration in the Design Phase
4. Reliability Tools and Integration in the Prototype Phase
5. Reliability Tools and Integration in the Manufacturing Phase
6. Reliability Techniques for Beginners
7. Reliability Statistics
8. FMECA
9. Certified Reliability Engineer (CRE) Preparation Course for ASQ
10.Certified Quality Engineer (CQE) Preparation Course for ASQ

7
RELIABILITY INTEGRATION

“the process of seamlessly


cohesively integrating reliability
tools together to maximize
reliability and at the lowest
possible cost”

8
Reliability vs. Cost
♦ Intuitively, one recognizes that there is some
minimum total cost that will be achieved when an
emphasis in reliability increases development and
manufacturing costs while reducing warranty and
in-service costs. Use of the proper tools during the
proper life cycle phase will help to minimize total
Life Cycle Cost (LCC).

9
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
Reliability vs. Cost, continued
TOTAL
COST
OPTIMUM CURVE
COST
POINT RELIABILITY
PROGRAM
COSTS
COST

WARRANTY
COSTS

RELIABILITY

10
Reliability vs. Cost, continued

In order to minimize total Life Cycle Costs (LCC),


a Reliability Engineer must do two things:
♦ choose the best tools from all of the tools
available and must apply these tools at the proper
phases of a product life cycle.
♦ properly integrate these tools together to assure
that the proper information is fed forward and
backwards at the proper times.

11
Reliability vs. Cost, continued

As part of the integration process, we must


choose a set of tools at the heart of our program
in which all other tools feed to and are fed from.
The tools we have chosen for this are:

HALT and HASS

12
HALT and HASS Summary
♦ Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) and Highly
Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS) are two of the
best reliability tools developed to date, and every
year engineers are turning to HALT and HASS to
help them achieve high reliability.

13
HALT and HASS Summary, continued
♦ In HALT, a product is introduced to progressively
higher stress levels in order to quickly uncover
design weaknesses, thereby increasing the
operating margins of the product, translating to
higher reliability.
♦ In HASS, a product is “screened” at stress levels
above specification levels in order to quickly
uncover process weaknesses, thereby reducing the
infant mortalities, translating to higher quality.

14
HALT and HASS Summary, continued

This presentation shall review the best reliability


tools to use in conjunction with HALT and HASS
and how to integrate them together.

15
RELIABILITY
INTEGRATION
TOOLS

16
Reliability Integration Tools - Summary
♦ PHASE I: Concept Phase
• Reliability Integration in the CONCEPT Phase -
Tools that are used in the concept phase of a
project in order to define the reliability requirements
of a program. Benchmarking is usually required.
• The output of this phase is the Reliability Program
and Integration Plan. This plan will specify which
tools to use and the goals and specifications of
each. This is the plan that drives the rest of the
program.

17
Reliability Integration Tools - Summary
♦ PHASE II: Design Phase
• Reliability Integration in the DESIGN Phase - Tools
that are used in the design phase of a project after
the reliability has been defined.
• Predictions and other forms of reliability analysis
are performed here.
• These tools will only have an impact on the design
if they are done very early in the design process.

18
Reliability Integration Tools - Summary
♦ Phase III: Prototype Phase
• Reliability Integration in the PROTOTYPE Phase -
Tools that are used after a working prototype has been
developed.
• This represents the first time a product will be tested.
• The testing will mostly be focused at finding design
issues

19
Reliability Integration Tools - Summary
♦ Phase IV: Manufacturing Phase
• Reliability Integration in the MANUFACTURING
Phase - Tools here are a combination of analytical
and test tools that are used in the manufacturing
environment to continually assess the reliability of
the product.
• The focus here will be mostly at finding process
issues

20
Reliability Integration Tools - Summary
♦ In this seminar, we shall concentrate on the
tools used in the Prototype and
Manufacturing Phases.
♦ We offer other seminars on tools used in
the Concept and Design Phases.

21
RELIABILITY
INTEGRATION IN
THE PROTOTYPE
PHASE
22
Reliability Integration in the
PROTOTYPE Phase

• Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT)


• Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action
System (FRACAS)
• Reliability Demonstration Test

23
HIGHLY ACCELERATED
LIFE TESTING (HALT)

24
HALT - Highly Accelerated Life Test

• Quickly discover design issues.


• Evaluate & improve design margins.
• Release mature product at market introduction.
• Reduce development time & cost.
• Eliminate design problems before release.
• Evaluate cost reductions made to product.

Developmental HALT is not really a test you pass or fail,


it is a process tool for the design engineers.

There are no pre-established limits.


HALT, How It Works

ss
re
St

Start low and step up the


stress, testing the product
during the stressing

26
HALT, How It Works

Fa
ilu

ss
re
re
St

Gradually increase
stress level until a
failure occurs

27
HALT, How It Works

Fa
ilu

ss
re
re
St

sis
aly
An Analyze
the failure
28
HALT, How It Works

Fa
ilu

ss
re
re
St

sis
Im

aly
pr
Make o ve An
temporary
improvements
29
HALT, How It Works
Increase
stress and Fa
start
ilu

e s
cr s
e)
process
re
(in tre
as
over S

sis
Im

aly
pr
o ve An
30
HALT, How It Works

Fa
ilu

e s
cr s
e)
re
(in tre
as
S
Fundamental
Technological

sis
Im Limit

aly
pr
o ve An
31
HALT, Why It Works
Classic S-N Diagram
(stress vs. number of cycles)

Point at which failures become non-relevant

S0= Normal Stress conditions


S2
N0= Projected Normal Life

Stress S1

S0

N2 N1 N0

32
Margin Improvement Process

Lower Lower Upper Upper


Destruct Oper. Product Oper. Destruct
Limit Limit Operational Limit Limit
Specs

Stress

33
Margin Improvement Process

Lower Lower Upper Upper


Destruct Oper. Product Oper. Destruct
Limit Limit Operational Limit Limit
Specs

Destruct
Margin
Operating
Margin

Stress

34
SUMMARY OF HALT
RESULTS AT AN
ACCELERATED
RELIABILITY TEST
CENTER

35
Summary of Customers
Industry Types Number of Product Type
Companies
1 Networking Equipment 6 Electrical
2 Defense Electronics 4 Electrical
3 Microwave Equipment 4 Electrical
4 Fiberoptics 2 Electrical
5 Remote Measuring Equipment 2 Electrical
6 Supercomputers 2 Electrical
7 Teleconferencing Equipment 1 Electro-mechanical
8 Video Processing Equipment 1 Electrical
9 Commercial Aviation Electronics 1 Electrical
10 Hand-held Computers 1 Electrical
11 Hand-held Measuring Equipment 1 Electrical
12 Monitors 1 Electrical
13 Medical Devices 1 Electro-mechanical
14 Personal Computers 1 Electrical
15 Printers and Plotters 1 Electro-mechanical
16 Portable Telephones 1 Electrical
17 Speakers 1 Electro-mechanical
18 Telephone Switching Equipment 1 Electrical
19 Semiconductor Manufacturing 1 Electro-mechanical
TOTAL 33
36
Summary of Products by Customer
Field Environment
Environment Number of Thermal Vibration
Type Products Environment Environment
Little or no
Office 18 0 to 40°C
vibration
Office with Vibration only from
9 0 to 40°C
User user of equipment
1-2 Grms vibration,
Vehicle 8 -40 to +75°C
0-200 Hz frequency
Little or no
Field 7 -40 to +60°C
vibration
Field with Vibration only from
4 -40 to +60°C
User user of equipment
1-2 Grms vibration,
Airplane 1 -40 to +75°C
0-500 Hz frequency
TOTAL 47
37
Summary of Results
- by attribute -
Thermal Data,oC Vibration Data, Grms
Attribute LOL LDL UOL UDL VOL VDL

Average -55 -73 93 107 61 65

Most
-100 -100 200 200 215 215
Robust
Least
15 -20 40 40 5 20
Robust

Median -55 -80 90 110 50 52

38
Summary of Results
- by field environment -
Thermal Data,oC Vibration Data, Grms
Environment LOL LDL UOL UDL VOL VDL

Office -62 -80 92 118 46 52


Office with
-21 -50 67 76 32 36
User
Vehicle -69 -78 116 123 121 124

Field -66 -81 106 124 66 69


Field with
-49 -68 81 106 62 62
User
Airplane -60 -90 110 110 18 29

39
Summary of Results
- by product application -
Product Thermal Data,oC Vibration Data, Grms
Application LOL LDL UOL UDL VOL VDL
Military -69 -78 116 123 121 124

Field -57 -74 94 115 64 66

Commercial -48 -73 90 95 32 39

40
Summary of Results
- by stress -

Cold Step Stress: 14%

Hot Step Stress: 17%

Rapid Thermal Transitions: 4%

Vibration Step Stress: 45%

Combined Environment: 20%

Significance:
Without Combined Environment, 20% of all
failures would have been missed 41
Failure Details by Stress
- Cold Step Stress -

Failure Mode Qty

Failed component 9

Circuit design issue 3

Two samples had much different


3
limits

Intermittent component 1

42
Failure Details by Stress
- Hot Step Stress -
Failure Mode Qty

Failed component 11

Circuit design issue 4

Degraded component 2

Warped cover 1

43
Failure Details by Stress
- Rapid Temperature Transitions -
Failure Mode Qty

Cracked component 1

Intermittent component 1

Failed component 1

Connector separated from board 1

44
Failure Details by Stress
- Vibration Step Stress -
Failure Mode Qty Failure Mode Qty
Broken lead 43 RTV applied incorrectly 1
Screws backed out 9 Potentiometer turned 1
Socket interplay 5 Plastic cracked at stress point 1
Connector backed out 5 Lifted pin 1
Component fell out of socket 5 Intermittent component 1
Tolerance issue 4 Failed component 1
Card backed out 4 Connectors wearing 1
Shorted component 2 Connector intermit. contact 1
Broken component 2 Connector broke from board 1
Sheared screws 1 Broken trace 1

45
Failure Details by Stress
- Combined Environment –
(combination of vibration with rapid temp transitions)

Failure Mode Qty

Broken lead 10
Component fell off (non-soldered) 4
Failed component 3
Broken component 1
Component shorted out 1
Cracked potting material 1
Detached wire 1
Circuit design issue 1
Socket interplay 1
46
HALT Flow Chart

Reliability - Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT) Flow

Use Reliability
Modeling/
Derating Data as
Input

Perform a Failure Research


Perform HALT, Taking Evaluate Failures/
Modes and Effects Environmental
Product Outside Weaknesses and
Analysis (FMEA) to Limitations on All
Environmental and Fix Those That Are
Determine "Exotic"
Performance Specs to Relevant and Cost-
Weakpoints in a Technologies Being
Find Weakpoints Effective
Reliability

Design Used
Send failure
information to
FRACAS

Publish Results
Are Margins Yes
Retest Product to
Acceptable for
No Determine New
Reliability
Limits
Reqts?

Use Results to
Use Results to Develop a
Develop a HASS Reliability
Profile Demonstration
Test

47
FAILURE REPORTING,
ANALYSIS, AND
CORRECTIVE ACTION
SYSTEM (FRACAS)

48
FRACAS

♦ This is also sometimes referred to as Closed


Loop Corrective Action (CLCA) or Corrective
and Preventive Action (CAPA).

♦ The purpose of the FRACAS is to provide a


closed loop failure reporting system,
procedures for analysis of failures to
determine root cause, and documentation for
recording corrective action.

49
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
FRACAS, continued
♦ This closed loop system should include:
• Assurance that the root cause for each failure
is found and clearly defined.
• Provisions to assure that effective corrective
actions are taken on a timely basis
• Follow-up audits for all open failure reports,
failure analyses, and corrective action
suspense dates
• Reporting all delinquencies to management
♦ An integral part of the FRACAS is the failure
review board (FRB). The FRB is responsible
for initiating and reviewing corrective action
to ensure reliability improvement.
50
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
FRACAS: How to use in conjunction with
a HALT
♦ When performing HALT, failures are identified and
each must be taken to root cause. FRACAS is the
perfect tool for this. A FRACAS can:
• Help classify failures as to their relevancy
• Help choose the appropriate analysis tool
• Keep track of the progress on each open issue
• Help communicate results with other departments and
outside the company

51
FRACAS: How to use in conjunction
with a HALT, continued
♦ A FRACAS can help classify failures as to their
relevancy
• During HALT, many failures are likely to be
uncovered. However, not all failures will be relevant.
The FMECA process will find many of these non-
relevant failures, but for those that are first found in
HALT, a FRACAS will help make the determination of
the relevancy by use of a variety of tools.

52
FRACAS: How to use in conjunction
with a HALT, continued
♦ When performing a failure analysis, there are many
tools that can be helpful. Some of these are:
• Fault Tree Analyses (FTA’s)
• Fishbone diagrams
• Pareto charts
• Designs of Experiments
• Tolerance Analyses

53
FRACAS: How to use in conjunction
with a HALT, continued
♦ A FRACAS can keep track of the progress on each
open issue
• Each failure is assigned a unique FRACAS Report ID
• Each report requires detailed information about the
corrective action and must be signed off
• During critical stages in a project, regular FRACAS
review meetings are typically held

54
FRACAS: How to use in conjunction
with a HALT, continued
♦ A FRACAS can help communicate results with other
departments and outside the company
• FRACAS databases are typically kept on a network
drive for general viewing
• FRACAS can be sent to a vendor to track failure
analysis
• FRACAS can be used to communicate with customers
on product development or field issues

55
FRACAS Flow Chart
Reliability - Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) Flow

Trend Failure Failure


Discovered in Discovered Discovered
Repair in HALT in HASS
Center Process Process

Develop Failure
Analysis Plan for Contact Customer Send Sample of
Specific Failure or Supplier (if Failure Back to
Gather Failure Analyze Failure to
Including Resource appropriate) to Component
Information Root Cause
Plan Inform Them of Manufacturer (if
Reliability

Plan appropriate)

Report Findings
Duplicate Failure, if and Implement Did Solution Fix
Recommendations Test Solution
possible Corrective Action Problem?

Yes
No

Report Solution and Monitor


Close Failure Effectiveness of Modify HASS
Analysis Solution / Perform Profile, if necessary
Verification HALT

56
RELIABILITY
DEMONSTRATION
TESTING (RDT)

57
Reliability Demonstration Testing (RDT)
♦ A sample of units are tested at accelerated
stresses for several months.
♦ The stresses are a bit lower than the HALT
stresses and they are held constant (or cycled
constantly) rather than gradually increasing.
♦ This enables us to calculate the acceleration factor
for the test.
♦ The RDT can be used to validate the reliability
prediction analyses.
♦ It is also useful in finding failure modes that are
not easily detected in a high time compression test
such as HALT.

58
RDT, continued

59
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
RDT, continued

60
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
RDT, continued

61
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
RDT, continued

62
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
RDT, continued

Classic S-N Diagram


(stress vs. number of cycles)

Point at which failures become non-relevant

S0= Normal Stress conditions


S2
N0= Projected Normal Life

Stress S1

S0

N2 N1 N0

63
RDT, continued

64
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
RDT, continued

65
CRE Primer by QCI, 1998
RDT: How to Use the Results of HALT in
Planning an RDT
♦ Two of the most important pieces of information to
decide upon when planning an RDT is which
stresses to apply and how much. From this, we can
derive the acceleration factor for the test. HALT can
help with both of these.
• HALT will identify the effects of each stress on the
product to determine which are most applicable.
• HALT will identify the margins of the product with
respect to each stress. This is critical so that the
highest amount of stress is applied in the RDT to gain
the most acceleration without applying too much,
possibly causing non-relevant failures.

66
RDT: How to Use the Results of
Reliability Predictions in Planning an RDT

♦ Another key factor in planning an RDT is the goal of


the test. This is usually driven by marketing
requirements, but the Reliability Prediction will help
determine how achievable this is
• Although the prediction may not be able to give an
exact MTBF number, it will give a number close
enough to help determine how long of an RDT to run
and what type of confidence in the numbers to expect.
• Many times, the reliability of the product will far
exceed initial marketing requirements. If this is the
case, the RDT can be planned to try to prove these
higher levels. Once achieved, the published specs
from marketing can be increased.
67
RDT Flow Chart
Reliability - Reliability Demonstration Testing Flow

Input From
Reliability Input From
Modeling/ HALT
Derating

Develop Test Plan, including


1. Number of Units
Review Reliability 2. Acceleration Factors Set up and Begin
Reliability

Goals Based on 3. Total Test Time Monitor Results


Test
Marketing Input 4. Confidence Levels

Have Reliability Publish Results


Goals Been Yes
Met?

68
RELIABILITY
INTEGRATION IN THE
MANUFACTURING
PHASE
69
Reliability Tools and Integration in the
MANUFACTURING Phase

• Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS)


• Highly Accelerated Stress Auditing (HASA)
• On-Going Reliability Testing (ORT)
• Repair Depot Setup
• Field Failure Tracking System
• Reliability Performance Reporting
• End-of-Life Assessment

70
HIGHLY ACCELERATED
STRESS SCREENING
(HASS)

71
HASS - What Is It?
• Detect & correct PROCESS changes.
• Reduce production time & cost.
• Increase out-of-box quality & field reliability.
• Decrease field service & warranty costs.
• Reduce infant mortality rate at product introduction.
• Finds failures that are not found with burn-in
• Accelerates ones ability to discover process and
component problems.

HASS is not a test, it’s a process. Each product has its


own process.

But...before HASS can begin, we must first HALT !!


72
Before HASS, We Must Characterize
Product with HALT

♦ Before HASS, we must HALT


• Even for mature products in which HASS is the
goal, HALT must be done first to characterize the
product margins.

73
Steps Towards HASS

♦ Begin process during HALT stage (involve mfg)


♦ HASS development
♦ Production HASS
HASS Process Is Begun Early
♦ Even before HALT is complete, we should
• determine production needs and throughput
• start designing and building fixture
• determine which stresses to apply
• obtain functional and environmental equipment
• understand manpower needs
• determine what level HASS will be performed
(assembly or system)
• determine location of HASS (in-house or at an
outside lab or contract manufacturer)
• for high volume products, determine when to switch
to an audit and what goals should be put in place to
trigger this
HASS Process
♦ After HALT is complete, we must
• assure Root Cause Analysis (RCA) completed on all
failures uncovered
• develop initial screen based on HALT results
• map production fixture (thermal/vibration)
• run proof-of-screen
HASS Process, continued
♦ Proof-of-Screen Criteria
• Assure that screen leaves sufficient life in product
• Assure that screen is effective
Assuring the Screen Leaves Sufficient Life
Make dwells long enough to execute diagnostic
suite. Execute diagnostics during entire profile.
UDL

UOL

S
. . . .
P
E
t
C

It is highly
recommended to
LOL combine six-axis
vibration, tickle
vibration, power cycling,
other stresses with
thermal. Powered on
monitoring is essential.
LDL Minimum
20 passes
Assuring the Screen Leaves Sufficient Life
♦ We run for X times more than proposed screen
• When we reach end-of-life, then we can say that
one screen will leave 1 – 1/x left in the product.
• Example: We recommend testing for a minimum of
20 times the proposed screen length. A failure
after 20 HASS screens tells us that one screen will
leave the product with 1 – 1/20 or 95% of its life.
HASS Process for Wide Operating Limits

Lower Lower Upper Upper


Destruct Operating Product Operating Destruct
Limit Limit Specs Limit Limit

HASS

ESS

Stress
The “Ideal” HASS Profile for wide
operating limits
Fast Rate Thermal
Make dwells long
UDL enough to execute
UO diagnostic suite.
L Execute diagnostics
during entire profile.

It is highly
S
recommended to
P t
E combine six-axis
C vibration, tickle
vibration, power
cycling, other
stresses with
thermal. Powered
on monitoring is
LOL essential.
LD
L
HASS Process for Narrow Operating Limits

Lower Lower Upper Upper


Destruct Operating Product Operating Destruct
Limit Limit Specs Limit Limit

Precipitation Screen
Detection
Screen
ESS

Stress
The “Ideal” HASS Profile for narrow
operating limits
UDL Make dwells long enough to execute
diagnostic suite. Execute
diagnostics during entire profile.

UOL
Fast Rate Thermal
S
P
E
t
C

Slow Rate Thermal


LOL
It is highly recommended to combine six-
axis vibration, tickle vibration, power
cycling, other stresses with thermal.
LDL Powered on monitoring is essential.
HASS Process Is Begun Early
♦ Production HASS
• Start screening process with 4x the number of
screen cycles intended for long-term HASS
• During production screening (after each production
run), adjust screen limits up and cycles down until
90% of the defects are discovered in the first 1-2
cycles.
• Monitor field results to determine effectiveness of
screen. Again, adjust screen limits as necessary
to decrease “escapes” to the field.
• Add other stresses, as necessary, if it is impractical
to adjust screen limits any further.
It is essential that the product being tested be fully exercised and monitored
for problem detection.
Typical HASS Failures
♦ Poor solder quality
♦ Socket failures
♦ Component failures
♦ Bent IC leads
♦ Incorrect components
♦ Improper component placement
♦ Test fixture/program errors
HASS Advantages over “Burn-In”

♦ Finds flaws typically found by customers


♦ Reduces production time and costs
♦ Lowers warranty costs
HASS Defects by Environment

Extreme Temperature
Combined Temperature and Transitions
6 Degree-of-Freedom Vibration 12% High Temp
46% Extreme
13%

29% Low Temp


Data from Array Technology (1993). Extreme
HASS – Implementation Requirements

♦ HALT for margin discovery


♦ Screen development
♦ Powered product with monitored tests
♦ Fixturing to allow required throughput

QuaMark, 1998
HASS Cost Benefits

♦ Greatly reduced test time


♦ Reduction in test equipment
♦ Lower warranty costs
♦ Minimized chance of product recalls

QualMark, 1998
HASS: How to Use the Results of FMECA
and a Reliability Predictions in Planning a
HASS
♦ How to use the results of FMECA and a Reliability
Prediction in planning a HASS
• FMECA results can identify possible wearout
mechanisms that need to be taken into account for
HASS.
• Reliability Prediction results can help determine how
much screening is necessary.

90
HASS: How to Use the Results of
FMECA and a Reliability Predictions in
Planning a HASS, continued
♦ Using FMECA results to identify possible wearout
mechanisms that need to be taken into account for
HASS
• As we discussed in the FMECA section, certain
wearout failure modes are not easily detectable in
HALT or even in HASS Development. Therefore,
when wearout failure modes are present, we must rely
on the results of a FMECA to help determine
appropriate screen parameters.

91
HASS: How to Use the Results of
FMECA and a Reliability Predictions in
Planning a HASS, continued
♦ Using Reliability Prediction results to determine how
much screening is necessary
• One of the parameters of a reliability prediction is the
First Year Multiplier factor. This is a factor applied to
a product based on how much manufacturing
screening is being performed (or is planned for) to
take into account infant mortality failures.
• The factor is on a scale between 1 and 4. No
screening yields a factor of 4, and 10,000 hours of
“effective” screening yields a factor of 1 (the scale is
logarithmic).

92
HASS: How to Use the Results of
FMECA and a Reliability Predictions in
Planning a HASS, continued
♦ Using Reliability Prediction results to determine how
much screening is necessary, continued
• Effective screening allows for accelerants such as
temperature and temperature cycling.
• HASS offers the best acceleration of any known
screen. Therefore, HASS is the perfect vehicle for
helping to keep this factor low in a reliability
prediction.

93
HASS: Using the Results of HALT to
Develop a HASS Profile

♦ Using the HALT Results, we then run a HASS


Development process
• The process must prove there is significant life left
in the product
• The process must prove that it is effective at finding
defects.

94
HASS: Linking the Repair Depot with
HASS by Sending “NTF” hardware back
through HASS
♦ During the repair process, we may identify a large
number of “No Trouble Founds” or NTFs. HASS is the
perfect vehicle for identifying if these NTFs are truly
intermittent hardware problems or due to something
else. Using HASS to assist with the “No Trouble
Found (NTF)” issue at the Repair Depot.

95
HASS Dilemma

Ø Difficult to implement without impacting production


Ø Expensive to implement across many CM’s.
Ø Difficult to cost-justify

HASA Solves All These Issues


HIGHLY ACCELERATED
STRESS AUDITING
(HASA)

97
What is HASA

♦ HASA is a Highly Accelerated Stress Audit


♦ HASA is an effective audit process for
manufacturing.

98
HASA Advantages

♦ HASA combines the best screening tools with the


best auditing tools.
♦ Better than ORT because it leverages off of HALT
and HASS to apply a screen tailored to the product
♦ Better than HASS because it is much cheaper and
easier to implement and “almost” as effective.

99
Steps to HASA

♦ HALT
♦ HASS Development
♦ Pilot HASS
♦ HASA

100
What is HASA

♦ HASA is an audit or sampling procedure


♦ HASA is intended for high volume applications in
which the emphasis is not on catching every defect but
rather detecting process shifts

101
Advantage of switching from HASS to HASA?
♦ To achieve cost efficiency for High Volume
production, reducing manpower, equipment,
utilities, and space costs.

Risks in switching from HASS to HASA?

♦ Some defective units will be shipped to the field.


♦ Corrective actions must be fast and accurate.

102
Review of HASA
♦ When can HASA be used?
• Design and processes are control
• HASS failure rate has become acceptable

♦ What is the advantage of a HASA program?


• Cost

♦ What is the risk of a HASA


• Statistical confidence

103
When should HASA be considered as an
option?

Only if:
HALT is completed
HASS Development is completed
HASS is successful

104
Is HALT Completed?

If so:
Design defects have been eliminated
Margins are known
Margins are large
Design is robust

105
Is HASS Development completed?

If so:
Screen is effective
Screen is safe

106
Is HASS implementation complete?

If so:
Failure rates are acceptable
Manufacturing processes are under control

107
HASA Plan
Goal is to catch shifts in processes

1. Detect degradations in process quality control


2. Compare with pre-established thresholds
3. Empower Corrective Action Team

108
HASA Example
Example from HP Vancouver

# units shipped per day = 1000


# units tested per day = 64

90% probability of detecting a rate shift from 1%


to 3% by sampling 112 units in just under 2 days

109
HASA Choices
Acceptable risk of allowing a “bad lot” to ship
Probability of detecting a process shift of some amount

SAMPLING PLAN
♦ Sample Size
♦ Decision Limits
♦ Commitment to Action

110
HASA Summary

♦ For high volume production, HASA is the best


process monitoring tool

111
HASS/HASA Flow Chart
Reliability - Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS) Flow

Analyze Repair Perform HASS


Data to Determine on Material
Data from HALT if HASS Profile from Repair
Needs to Be Center Has Product
Strengthened Do Results/
Undergone a
Volumes Warrant
Change that No
Moving to
Could Affect
Sample?
Performance
Prove Profile Using
Develop a HASS Iterative Process of
Profile that Matches Increasing Stress
Product to Maximum
Performance Possible without
Reliability

Capabilities Weakening Product Yes Perform HASS and


Collect Data Send Failures
No
to Failure
No Analysis
Process

Yes
Yes

Has Product
Undergone a Change
Develop HASS Do Results Yes
Perform Sample that Could Affect
Sampling Plan and Warrant Staying
HASS and Collect Performance?
Implement with Sample
Data
HASS?

No

112
ON-GOING RELIABILITY
TESTING (ORT)

113
On-Going Reliability Testing (ORT)

♦ ORT is a process of taking a sample of products


off a production line and testing them for a period
of time, adding the cumulative test time to achieve
a reliability target. The samples are rotated on a
periodic basis to:
• get an on-going indication of the reliability
• assure that the samples are not wearing too much
(because after the ORT is complete, the samples are shipped).

114
ORT vs RDT

♦ ORT is a very similar test to the Reliability


Demonstration Test (RDT) except that the RDT is
usually performed once just prior to release of the
product, whereas the ORT is an on-going test
rotating in samples from the manufacturing line.

♦ An ORT consists of a Planning stage and a Testing


and Continual Monitoring stage. The inputs from
the customer are the number of units allocated to
the test, the duration that each set of units will be
in the test before being cycled through, and the
stress factors to be applied.

115
ORT Parameters

♦ Just as in a RDT, we must choose a goal, sample


size, acceleration factors, and confidence.
♦ In addition, we must choose length of time each
sample will be in ORT. Because these are
shippable units, we cannot risk taking significant
life out.

116
ORT Goal
♦ The goal of an ORT is to:
• Ensure that the defined reliability specification,
including the MTBF, are met throughout the
manufacturing life of the product.
• Verify that infant mortalities have been removed
during the standard manufacturing process.

117
ORT Goal, a closer look
♦ The goal of an ORT is to:
• Ensure that the defined reliability specification,
including the MTBF, are met throughout the
manufacturing life of the product.
Does it do this?

118
ORT Goal, a closer look
♦ The goal of an ORT is to:
• Ensure that the defined reliability specification,
including the MTBF, are met throughout the
manufacturing life of the product.
Does it do this?
The answer is “yes”, but a better question is:
Is this really the most effective method of doing this?

119
ORT Goal, a closer look
♦ The goal of an ORT is to:
• Ensure that the defined reliability specification,
including the MTBF, are met throughout the
manufacturing life of the product.
Does it do this?
The answer is yes, but a better question is:
Is this really the most effective method of doing this?
Probably Not. Wouldn’t a HALT/RDT be much more
effective? HALT will make the product more robust,
and then RDT will measure the reliability after that.
Then we perform periodic HALT’s to assure the
product remains robust.

120
ORT Goal, a closer look
♦ The goal of an ORT is to:
• Ensure that the defined reliability specification,
including the MTBF, are met throughout the
manufacturing life of the product.
• Verify that infant mortalities have been removed
during the standard manufacturing process.
Does it do this?

121
ORT Goal, a closer look
♦ The goal of an ORT is to:
• Ensure that the defined reliability specification,
including the MTBF, are met throughout the
manufacturing life of the product.
• Verify that infant mortalities have been removed
during the standard manufacturing process.
Does it do this?
The answer is “NO, IT DOES NOT!”
ORT is ineffective for process monitoring because
a) ORT rarely finds problems because acceleration
factors are typically not aggressive enough.

122
ORT Goal, a closer look
♦ The goal of an ORT is to:
• Ensure that the defined reliability specification,
including the MTBF, are met throughout the
manufacturing life of the product.
• Verify that infant mortalities have been removed
during the standard manufacturing process.
Does it do this?
The answer is “NO, IT DOES NOT!”
ORT is ineffective for process monitoring because
a) ORT rarely finds problems because acceleration
factors are typically not aggressive enough.
b) when problems that are found, it may be weeks
later and products from that lot have already shipped.
123
Comparison Between ORT and HASA

♦ ORT Benefits over HASA


• You can measure reliability at any given time
♦ HASA Benefits over ORT
• Effective process monitoring tool due to ability to
find failures and to timely corrective actions
• Don’t need to measure on-going reliability because
reliability measurement was already done once in
RDT. Also, periodic HALT is a much better vehicle
for continuously monitoring reliability over time after
it has been baselined.

124
REPAIR DEPOT
SETUP

125
Repair Depot Setup
♦ A Repair Depot facility must be set up with the
proper testing in place to reproduce the failures
and to assure that the product has enough life left
to be shipped back into the field.

♦ But more importantly it must be set up in such a


way as to learn from the failures and make
changes to the design and manufacturing
processes to assure the failures are not repeated.

126
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Repair Depot Plan
♦ Lowest Replaceable Unit (LRU) Level Analysis
♦ Repair Depot Location Strategy – In-house vs. 3rd
Party
♦ Repair Process

127
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Repair Depot Plan
• The plan will outline the Repair Depot process from
beginning to end and the decisions that have to be
made along the way, including identifying the
Lowest Replaceable Units (LRUs), the location of
the Repair Depot, and the Repair Process itself.

128
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Lowest Replaceable Unit (LRU) Level Analysis
• Through the use of a reliability prediction and a
maintainability prediction, we shall help identify the
LRU’s for the product. The choice of which
subassemblies will be LRU’s is based on how often
the subassembly will fail, how easy it is for the user
to identify and replace the LRU, and how safe the
operation is for the user and the product.

129
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Repair Depot Location Strategy – In-house vs. 3rd
Party
• Depending on the complexity of the product, it may
make sense have a 3rd Party vendor act as the
Repair Depot. We shall help perform this analysis
and evaluate the needs vs. the capabilities to
determine the strategy that makes the most sense.

130
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Repair Process
• Integrate with HALT results
• Integrate with HASS results
• Using HASS for “No Problem Found” issues
• “Three Strikes” Process
• Set up to feed data to the Field Failure Tracking
System

131
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Integrating the Repair Depot Center with HALT
results
• If we find design issues in the field and we can
duplicate these issues in the Repair Depot Center,
we must feed them back into the HALT process.
• Therefore, the Repair Depot must be set up to easily
feed information back to the HALT process when
issues like this arise.
• The Corrective Action System is the perfect vehicle
for linking these two together.

132
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Integrate the Repair Depot Center with HALT
results
• Once the issue is fed back into the HALT process,
we will review the type of failure and why HALT was
not able to find the problem.
• Under what conditions did the failure occur?
• Was this something that HALT found but for which
corrective action was not implemented?
• Perhaps we stopped short of reaching the
fundamental limit of technology.
• Perhaps additional stresses are required.
• This will then be used for future HALT’s so that the
process continually learns and adapts.
133
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Integrate the Repair Depot Center with HASS
results
• If we find process issues in the field and we can
duplicate these issues in the Repair Depot Center,
we must feed them back into the HASS process.
• Therefore, the Repair Depot must be set up to easily
feed information back to the HASS process when
issues like this arise.
• The Corrective Action System is the perfect vehicle
for linking these two together.

134
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Integrate the Repair Depot Center with HASS
results
• Once the issue is fed back into the HASS process,
we will review the type of failure and why HASS was
not able to find the problem.
• Was the issue a DOA or did it occur into the life of
the product? This will help determine why HASS
did not catch.
• Perhaps the screen limits need to be adjusted.
• Perhaps additional stresses are required.
• This information will then be used for future
HASS’es so that the process continually learns and
adapts.
135
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Using HASS for “No Problem Found” issues
• We shall help determine how to treat “No Problem
Founds” (NPFs).
• We shall also help integrate the Repair Depot
process with the HASS process so that “No Problem
Found” items are sent through the HASS process so
that intermittent failures can be discovered and
repaired as well.

136
Repair Depot Setup
♦ “Three Strikes” Process
• We shall help identify how often to allow failed
products to be sent back to the field.
• A typical rule of thumb is to apply a “three strikes”
policy in which a failed product may not be returned
to the field if it is has been returned 3 times.

137
Repair Depot Setup
♦ Set up the Repair Depot System to feed data to the
Field Failure Tracking System
• The Repair Depot Center retests products returned
from the field to confirm failures and determine root
cause.
• The confirmation is then fed back to the Field
Failure Tracking System so that it can be properly
categorized for reliability data reporting.

138
FIELD FAILURE
TRACKING SYSTEM

139
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ The purpose of the Field Failure Tracking System
is to provide a system for evaluating a product’s
performance in the field and for quickly
identifying trends.

140
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ When setting up a Field Failure Tracking System,
we must
• Identify key parameters to monitor
• Develop failure codes
• Choose appropriate Tracking System
• Implementation of the Tracking System
• Integration of the Tracking System
• Track trends
• Educate others as to use

141
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Identify key parameters to monitor
• Before setting up a system, we must first identify
what key parameters need to be monitored – Date
of Shipment, Date of Return, Failure Code, Further
Actions, etc. as well as what key metrics need to
be calculated (DOA rate, MTBF, etc.)

142
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Failure Code Definitions
• Failure code definitions are key to the tracking
system because proper coding of failures is the
only way to easily identify trends.

143
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Choice of Tracking Systems
• Once we have identified all of the key parameters
to capture, we will help choose the best tracking
system for your particular application. Anything
from Excel to Oracle can be used. Some level of
customization may be needed. Special modules
are also available from reliability software houses
such as ReliaSoft and Relex.
• This system must link well with the Failure Analysis
System.

144
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Implementation of Tracking System
• Once we have assured data integrity, then we can
use the Field Failure Tracking System to
• track trends
• calculate reliability of the product on-going,
including

145
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Implementation of the System - Tracking Trends
• The most important step in the process is to evaluate
the data, spot any trends that are developing, and to
provide corrective action as needed. We will show
you proper techniques for identifying trends from the
given data and how to follow through the entire
process.

146
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Implementation of the System - Metrics
• There are numerous metrics we can track, including
• DOA rates
• MTBF
• Warranty returns
• End-of-Life Issues (see EOL Assessment for more details)

147
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Set up to easily collect data to calculate Field MTBF
• All of these reliability calculations can be presented
using
• total over time
• point estimates
• rolling averages
• 3 month rolling average
• 12 month rolling average

148
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Set up to easily collect data to calculate Field MTBF
• Rolling averages are typically the best because
• they show the reliability trend
• they make for an easy comparison from the time a
product starts shipping to present to show reliability
growth
• they can show effectiveness of a corrective action
by comparing from the time a failure is discovered
to after a corrective action has been implemented.

149
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Setting up the Field Failure Tracking System to
integrate with sales support and customer
service to assure data integrity
• Data Integrity is key to a good Field Failure
Tracking System. We must be able to accurately
determine
• Date product was put into service
• Date of failure
• Circumstances around failure and solution

150
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Data Integrity – Date product was put into service
• This is not the same as the date of shipment
• Often we have an “adder” to the ship date (e.g.
ship date + 30 days) but we must verify this is
accurate
• Sales support will help define this since they
know the customer installation process best
• From this we need to be able to accurately
determine DOAs from products that failed soon
after installation.
• We need to come up with “Definition of DOA”, or
how many days after installation is a failure
considered a DOA.

151
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Data Integrity – Date of failure
• The failure date is equally as critical and not
always easy to determine because the customer
sometimes only indicates the date the product was
returned and not the date it failed
• Customer service can help work with the
customers to assure that we get accurate
information here

152
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Data Integrity – Circumstances around failure and
solution
• The key to each field issue is the actual failure itself
and how it was solved.
• Tags on product with failure information is essential
• RMA numbers should also be on these tags and
these RMA numbers should tie back to database
• The database should be linked to the Field Failure
Tracking Database so that all of the circumstances
around the failure are known before trying to repair.
• Often we will find that the true problem was
identified after hardware was returned
• Sometimes numerous pieces of hardware are
pulled to solve a single problem – “Shotgunning”
153
Field Failure Tracking System
♦ Integrating the Field Failure Tracking System with
the Repair Depot Center
• Failed products from the field are returned to the
Repair Depot Center for confirm and to determine
root cause.
• The confirmation is then fed back to the Field
Failure Tracking System so that it can be properly
categorized for reliability data reporting.

154
RELIABILITY
PERFORMANCE
REPORTING

155
Reliability Performance Reporting
♦ Reliability Performance Reporting in its simplest form
is just reporting back how we are doing against our
plan. In this report, we must capture
• how we are doing against our goals and against our
schedule to meet our goals ?
• how well we are integrating each tool together ?
• what modifications we may need to make to our plan ?
♦ In the report, we can also add information on specific
issues, progress on failure analyses, and paretos and
trend charts

156
Reliability Performance Reporting
♦ How we are doing against our goals and against our
schedule to meet our goals ?
• After collecting the field data, we then compare with our
goals and estimate how we are doing.
• If we are achieving a specific goal element, we explain
what pieces are working and the steps we are going to
take to assure that this continues
• If we are not achieving a specific goal element, we must
understand what contributed to this and what steps we
are going to take to change this
• As part of this, we must understand the major
contributors to each goal element through trend
plotting and failure analyses

157
Reliability Performance Reporting
♦ How well we are integrating each tool together ?
• As part of an understanding the effectiveness of our
reliability program, we must look at the overall program
• For example, if we stated in the plan that we were going
to use the results of the prediction as input to HALT, we
must describe here how we accomplished this
• This can help explain the effectiveness of the HALT
so that its results can be repeated
• This can help explain how the HALT can be more
effective in future programs if we overlooked or
skipped some of the integration
• This will serve as documentation for future programs

158
Reliability Performance Reporting
♦ What modifications we may need to make to our plan ?
• Occasionally, we may need to modify the plan
• Goals may change due to new customer/marketing
requirements
• We may have discovered new tools or new
approaches to using existing tools based on research
• We may have developed new methods of integration
based on experimentation and research
• Schedule may have changed

159
Reliability Performance Reporting
♦ What modifications we may need to make to our plan ?
• If this occurs, we need to
• Re-write the plan
• Summarize the changes in our Reliability
Performance Report so that we can accurately
capture these new elements going forward

160
END-OF-LIFE
ASSESSMENT

161
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ We Perform End-of-Life Assessments to
• Determine when a product is starting to wear out in
case product needs to be discontinued
• Monitor preventive maintenance strategy and
modify as needed
• Monitor spares requirements to determine if a
change in allocation is necessary
• Tie back to End-of-Life Analysis done in the Design
Phase to determine accuracy of analysis

162
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ Determining when a product is starting to wear
out in case product needs to be discontinued
• In most market segments, customers don’t expect
products to last forever and would gladly replace if
technological advances dictate it
• Therefore, discontinuing a product and offering an
upgrade/replacement is common
• If we can calculate when a product is starting to
reach end-of-life, this will help provide the cost
justification for both us and our customer

163
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ Monitor preventive maintenance strategy and
modify as needed
• If we decide to continue supporting the product, we
may determine our preventive maintenance
strategy needs to be modified
• Perhaps we didn’t anticipate a wearout
mechanism that now needs to be dealt with
• Perhaps we estimated incorrectly the length of
time before wearout would begin

164
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ Monitor spares requirements to determine if a
change in allocation is necessary
• Our spares allocation is partly based on our initial
Reliability Prediction and End-of-Life (EOL)
Analysis.
• If our EOL Assessment is showing something that
we did not predict in our EOL Analysis, then our
spares allocation will need to be adjusted as a
result.

165
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ Tie back to End-of-Life Analysis done in the
Design Phase to determine accuracy of analysis
• For future programs, this comparison between
EOL analysis and EOL assessment is critical to
understand how to modify.
• In some cases, our EOL analysis may differ
because of analytical techniques. If this is the
case, we can develop an adjustment factor
between EOL analysis and EOL assessment and
carry forward to new programs.

166
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ So now that we understand how to use EOL
Assessments, how to we actually perform one ?
• An EOL Assessment uses Weibull-plotting
techniques to determine where on the “bathtub”
curve we are

167
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ A review of the “bathtub” curve

Infant Mortality level driven by amount of


screening in mfg./characterized using a
special factor in prediction

Failure Onset of end-


Ideal Steady State Reliability of-life (EOL)
Rate
reliability at Level described by
time of prediction
ship

Time

168
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
♦ To figure out where we are, we plot the field data
• We must “scrub” the data to
• accurately determine the number of days in use
before failure
• properly categorize the failure
• We must be careful and plot data by assembly
type, especially if different assemblies have
different wearout mechanisms. Otherwise, it will
be impossible to determine a pattern

169
End-of-Life (EOL) Assessment
ReliaSoft's Weibull++ 6.0 - www.Weibull.com
Failure Rate vs Time Plot
0.10
Weibull
Since Jan 28 - (NTF-knwnissues)

W2 RRX - SRM MED


F=49 / S=0

0.08

0.06
Failure Rate, f(t)/R(t)

0.04

0.02

Mike Silverman
Company
5/2/2004 07:58
0
0 40.00 80.00 120.00 160.00 200.00
Time, (t)

β=2.9032, η=60.9188, ρ=0.8154

170
Presentation Summary
In this class, we learned about:
• The four phases of a reliability program
• Concept
• Design
• Prototype
• Manufacturing
• We learned about the reliability tools used in each
phase and how to integrate all of the tools together
• We learned about HALT and HASS and their role
in an overall reliability program

171
Presentation Summary
In the Prototype Phase, we learned about:
• Highly Accelerated Life Testing (HALT)
• Failure Reporting, Analysis and Corrective Action
System (FRACAS)
• Reliability Demonstration Testing
and how to integrate these together and with
tools from the other phases

172
Presentation Summary
In the Manufacturing Phase, we learned about:
• Highly Accelerated Stress Screening (HASS)
• Highly Accelerated Stress Screen Audit (HASA)
• On-Going Reliability Testing (ORT)
• Repair Depot Setup
• Field Failure Tracking System Setup
• Reliability Performance Reporting
• End-of-Life Assessment
and how to integrate these together and with
tools from the other phases

173
Presentation Summary
In Summary we have learned:
• the power of developing realistic reliability goals
early, planning an implementation strategy, and
then executing the strategy, and...

the power of integration !!

174
Presentation Summary

WHAT ARE YOUR QUESTIONS ?

175
Further Education

• For a more In-depth view of this topic and more, Mike


will be teaching at:
• May 18th-20th: Applied Reliability Symposium,
San Diego
• Ops A La Carte is a proud sponsor of the 2005 ARS at the
Catamaran Resort on Mission Bay in San Diego, CA.
• In addition to sponsoring, we shall be giving a presentation
on “Reliability Integration Across the Product Life Cycle”
• October 20th and 21st: “Essential Reliability Tools:
A look at the best reliability tools being used”
• Go to www.opsalacarte.com/pages/news/news_events.htm for more details

176
For more information...

♦ Contact Ops A La Carte (www.opsalacarte.com)


• Mike Silverman
• (408) 472-3889
• mikes@opsalacarte.com

177