This content is not included in
your SAE MOBILUS subscription, or you are not logged in.
On the Question of
M
Incentive Contracting
Annotation ability available
Sector:
Language:
English
Abstract
The authors try to answer the question, “Are the methods of M (maintainability) demonstration sufficiently developed at this date to make M incentive contracting practical?”
To answer the question the authors review and critique the M demonstration methods in vogue today. Seriously questioned are the present statistical techniques for reducing M demonstration test data.
The authors agree that sufficient field maintenance data exist to confirm that field times-to-repair of electronic and electromechanical equipment are best fitted by a log-normal curve; but point out that from their experience one can expect the times-to-repair observed during an M demonstration test to be normally distributed. Principally for this reason, the authors suggest that the Md TTR (median-time-to-repair) is a more suitable M index than the MTTR (mean-time-to-repair) for contracting purposes.
The point is made that variations in the observed Md TTR will exist from one demonstration test to another and from the demonstration test to the field experience, but that these variations are more likely due to human factors than to equipment factors. Four causes for these variations are traced to differences in repairmen skills, experience, learning and motivation. To cope with some of the variations, some coarse correction factors for the demonstration test data are given even though the authors admit that much more study and development are necessary to achieve the accuracy required for making M incentive contracting practical.
Recommended Content
Authors
Topic
Citation
Doyon, L. and Appley, K., "On the Question ofAlso In
References
- Epstein B. “Statistical Life Test Acceptance Procedures,” Technometrics ASQC and ASA Washington, D. C. 2 4 November 1960 435 446
- Myers R. H. Wong K. L. Gordy H. M. Reliability Engineering for Electronic Systems John Wiley ' Sons, Inc. New York, N. Y. 1964 174 229
- Keefe G.J. “Contractor Performance Evaluation,” Annals of Reliability and Maintainability, Fifth Reliability ' Maintainability Converence AIAA, New York, N. Y. 5 July 1966 583
- Von Alven W. H. Reliability Engineering ARINC, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 375 379
- Bogle J. W. Sacks J. “A Case Study in Maintainability,” Proceedings of the Eleventh National Symposium on Reliability and Quality Control Miami Beach, Florida January 1965 59 67
- Von Alven W. H. op. cit. 157
- Bogle J.W. Sacks J. op. cit. 61
- Myers R. H. Wong K. L. Gordy H. M. op. cit. 200
- Epstein B. “Estimation from Life Test Data,” IRE Transactions on Reliability New York, N. Y. April 1960 104 107
- Von Alven W. H. op. cit. 155
- Burington R. S. May D. C. Handbook of Probabilty and Statistics with Tables, Handbook Publishers Inc. Sandusky, Ohio 1953 168
- Hald A. Statistical Theory with Engineering Applications John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, N. Y. 1952 161
- Von Alven W. H. op. cit. 160
- Wilson M. A. “The Learning Curve in Maintenance Analysis,” Annals of Reliability and Maintainability, Fifth Reliability and Maintainability Conference AIAA, New York, N. Y. 5 July 1966 435
- Roethliskerger F.J. Dickson W. J. Management and the Worker Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts 1939 36 39
- Allen G.H. Barton J.R. DeMilia R. M. Grippo G. Horowitz J. E. Handbook for Reliability and Maintainability Monitors, Technical Documentary Report No. ESD-TDR-64-616, ASTIA Document AD611 577 December 1964 1 22
- Grose V. L. “Incentive Contracts and the Reliability Riddle,” Quality Assurance Hitchcock Publications Wheaton, Ill. 3 11 November 1964 20
- Dertinger E. F. “Funding Reliability Programs,” Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Symposium on Reliability and Quality San Francisco, Calif. January 1963 23