IEEE Standard For Organizational

IEEE Std 1624
-2008
IEEE Standard for Organizational
Reliability Capability
IEEE
3 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016-5997, USA
5 February 2009
IEEE Reliability Standards Committee
Sponsored by the
IEEE Reliability Society
1
6
2
4
T
M
Authorized licensed use limited to: IHS Stephanie Dejesus. Downloaded on February 16, 2009 at 05:38 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Provided by IHS Licensee=PDVSA - Maracaibo site 3/9986712008, User=Quintero, Jose
Not for Resale, 06/25/2014 11:50:52 MDT No reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624
TM
-2008
Sponsor
IEEE Reliability Standards Committee
of the
IEEE Reliability Society
Approved 26 September 2008
IEEE-SA Standards Board

--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Abstract: Organizational reliability capability and the identification of the criteria for assessing the
reliability capability of an organization are defined.
Keywords: assessment, organizational reliability capability, reliability capability, reliability
management, reliability program, supply chain

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
3 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5997, USA

Copyright 2009 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
All rights reserved. Published 5 February 2009. Printed in the United States of America.

IEEE is a registered trademark in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, owned by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Incorporated.

PDF: ISBN 978-0-7381-5814-3 STD95828
Print: ISBN 978-0-7381-5815-0 STDPD95828

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form, in an electronic retrieval system or otherwise, without the prior written permission
of the publisher.

-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-

IEEE Standards documents are developed within the IEEE Societies and the Standards Coordinating Committees of
the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) Standards Board. The IEEE develops its standards through a consensus
development process, approved by the American National Standards Institute, which brings together volunteers
representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve the final product. Volunteers are not necessarily members of the
Institute and serve without compensation. While the IEEE administers the process and establishes rules to promote
fairness in the consensus development process, the IEEE does not independently evaluate, test, or verify the accuracy
of any of the information or the soundness of any judgments contained in its standards.
Use of an IEEE Standard is wholly voluntary. The IEEE disclaims liability for any personal injury, property or other
damage, of any nature whatsoever, whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory, directly or indirectly
resulting from the publication, use of, or reliance upon this, or any other IEEE Standard document.
The IEEE does not warrant or represent the accuracy or content of the material contained herein, and expressly
disclaims any express or implied warranty, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a specific
purpose, or that the use of the material contained herein is free from patent infringement. IEEE Standards documents
are supplied AS IS.
The existence of an IEEE Standard does not imply that there are no other ways to produce, test, measure, purchase,
market, or provide other goods and services related to the scope of the IEEE Standard. Furthermore, the viewpoint
expressed at the time a standard is approved and issued is subject to change brought about through developments in the
state of the art and comments received from users of the standard. Every IEEE Standard is subjected to review at least
every five years for revision or reaffirmation. When a document is more than five years old and has not been
reaffirmed, it is reasonable to conclude that its contents, although still of some value, do not wholly reflect the present
state of the art. Users are cautioned to check to determine that they have the latest edition of any IEEE Standard.
In publishing and making this document available, the IEEE is not suggesting or rendering professional or other
services for, or on behalf of, any person or entity. Nor is the IEEE undertaking to perform any duty owed by any other
person or entity to another. Any person utilizing this, and any other IEEE Standards document, should rely upon his or
her independent judgment in the exercise of reasonable care in any given circumstances or, as appropriate, seek the
advice of a competent professional in determining the appropriateness of a given IEEE standard.

Interpretations: Occasionally questions may arise regarding the meaning of portions of standards as they relate to
specific applications. When the need for interpretations is brought to the attention of IEEE, the Institute will initiate
action to prepare appropriate responses. Since IEEE Standards represent a consensus of concerned interests, it is
important to ensure that any interpretation has also received the concurrence of a balance of interests. For this reason,
IEEE and the members of its societies and Standards Coordinating Committees are not able to provide an instant
response to interpretation requests except in those cases where the matter has previously received formal consideration.
A statement, written or oral, that is not processed in accordance with the IEEE-SA Standards Board Operations Manual
shall not be considered the official position of IEEE or any of its committees and shall not be considered to be, nor be
relied upon as, a formal interpretation of the IEEE. At lectures, symposia, seminars, or educational courses, an
individual presenting information on IEEE standards shall make it clear that his or her views should be considered the
personal views of that individual rather than the formal position, explanation, or interpretation of the IEEE.

Comments for revision of IEEE Standards are welcome from any interested party, regardless of membership affiliation
with IEEE. Suggestions for changes in documents should be in the form of a proposed change of text, together with
appropriate supporting comments. Comments on standards and requests for interpretations should be submitted to the
following address:
Secretary, IEEE-SA Standards Board
445 Hoes Lane
Piscataway, NJ 08854
USA
Authorization to photocopy portions of any individual standard for internal or personal use is granted by The Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., provided that the appropriate fee is paid to Copyright Clearance Center.
To arrange for payment of licensing fee, please contact Copyright Clearance Center, Customer Service, 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA; +1 978 750 8400. Permission to photocopy portions of any individual standard for
educational classroom use can also be obtained through the Copyright Clearance Center.
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

iv
Copyright 2009 IEEE. All rights reserved.
Introduction
This introduction is not part of IEEE Std 1624-2008, IEEE Standard for Organizational Reliability Capability.
This standard establishes the criteria for assessing the reliability capability of an organization.
Organizational reliability capability is characterized by key processes and associated metrics. This standard
can be used for self-assessment by organizations or for supplier/customer relationship development
between members of a supply chain. The standard could also be used to assure conformance to existing
supplier/customer reliability requirements. This standard does not seek to create or propose creation of
certifying bodies to assess reliability capability of a company.
Notice to users
Laws and regulations
Users of these documents should consult all applicable laws and regulations. Compliance with the
provisions of this standard does not imply compliance to any applicable regulatory requirements.
Implementers of the standard are responsible for observing or referring to the applicable regulatory
requirements. IEEE does not, by the publication of its standards, intend to urge action that is not in
compliance with applicable laws, and these documents may not be construed as doing so.
Copyrights
This document is copyrighted by the IEEE. It is made available for a wide variety of both public and
private uses. These include both use, by reference, in laws and regulations, and use in private self-
regulation, standardization, and the promotion of engineering practices and methods. By making this
document available for use and adoption by public authorities and private users, the IEEE does not waive
any rights in copyright to this document.
Updating of IEEE documents
Users of IEEE standards should be aware that these documents may be superseded at any time by the
issuance of new editions or may be amended from time to time through the issuance of amendments,
corrigenda, or errata. An official IEEE document at any point in time consists of the current edition of the
document together with any amendments, corrigenda, or errata then in effect. In order to determine whether
a given document is the current edition and whether it has been amended through the issuance of
amendments, corrigenda, or errata, visit the IEEE Standards Association Web site at
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/standards.jsp, or contact the IEEE at the address listed previously.
For more information about the IEEE Standards Association or the IEEE standards development process,
visit the IEEE-SA Web site at http://standards.ieee.org.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-

v
Errata
Errata, if any, for this and all other standards can be accessed at the following URL:
http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/updates/errata/index.html. Users are encouraged to check this URL
for errata periodically.
Interpretations
Current interpretations can be accessed at the following URL: http://standards.ieee.org/reading/ieee/interp/
index.html.
Patents
Attention is called to the possibility that implementation of this standard may require use of subject matter
covered by patent rights. By publication of this standard, no position is taken with respect to the existence
or validity of any patent rights in connection therewith. The IEEE is not responsible for identifying
Essential Patent Claims for which a license may be required, for conducting inquiries into the legal validity
or scope of Patents Claims or determining whether any licensing terms or conditions provided in
connection with submission of a Letter of Assurance, if any, or in any licensing agreements are reasonable
or non-discriminatory. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any
patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, is entirely their own responsibility. Further
information may be obtained from the IEEE Standards Association.

-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-

vi
Participants
At the time this standard was submitted to the IEEE-SA Standards Board for approval, the Reliability
Standards Working Group had the following membership:
Michael Pecht, Chair
Diganta Das, Vice Chair
Jerry Cartwright, Secretary
Michael H. Azarian, Technical Editor
Alan Wood, Associate Technical Editor

Jon Elerath
Louis J. Gullo
Harold Hart
Tyrone Jackson
Ari Jain

Fred Schenkelberg
Jack Sherman
Sanjay Tiku

The following members of the individual balloting committee voted on this standard. Balloters may have
voted for approval, disapproval, or abstention.
Gary Arntson
Ali Al Awazi
Michael H. Azarian
Bakul Banerjee
Hugh Barrass
Thomas Basso
Juris Borzovs
Pieter Botman
J. Bruder
Jeffrey Burnworth
Massimo Cardaci
Juan Carreon
Norbert Carte
Lawrence Catchpole
Keith Chow
Raul Colcher
John Cole
Geoffrey Darnton
Diganta Das
Thomas Dineen
Carlo Donati
Ernest Duckworth
Sourav Dutta
Jon Elerath
Harriet Feldman
David Friscia
Gregg Giesler
Lewis Gray

Randall Groves
Louis J. Gullo
John Harauz
Werner Hoelzl
Gary Hoffman
Robert Holibaugh
Atsushi Ito
Mark Jaeger
Piotr Karocki
Jim Kulchisky
Saumen Kundu
David J. Leciston
Albert Livshitz
Edward Mccall
Gary Michel
William Milam
James Moore
Jerry Murphy
Rajesh Murthy
Prajit Nair
Michael S. Newman
Satoshi Oyama
Donald Parker
Kevin Patton
Mark Paulk
William Petit
Ulrich Pohl
Edward Rafter
Annette Reilly
Michael Roberts
Robert Robinson
Charles Rogers
Terence Rout
Michael Rush
Robert Schaaf
Fred Schenkelberg
Richard Schrenker
Stephen Schwarm
Jack Sherman
Hyeong Sim
Carl Singer
James E. Smith
Luca Spotorno
Thomas Starai
Raymond Strittmatter
Walter Struppler
Marcy Stutzman
Alourdes Sully
Thomas Tullia
John Vergis
Charlene Walrad
Mark Walton
John Walz
Alan Wood
Oren Yuen
Janusz Zalewski
Alexandru Zamfirescu

--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

vii

When the IEEE-SA Standards Board approved this standard on 26 September 2008, it had the following
membership:
Robert M. Grow, Chair
Thomas Prevost, Vice Chair
Steve M. Mills, Past Chair
Judith Gorman, Secretary

Victor Berman
Richard DeBlasio
Andy Drozd
Mark Epstein
Alexander Gelman
William Goldbach
Arnie Greenspan
Ken Hanus
Jim Hughes
Richard Hulett
Young Kyun Kim
Joseph L. Koepfinger*
John Kulick
David J. Law
Glenn Parsons
Ron Petersen
Chuck Powers
Thomas Prevost
Narayanan Ramachandran
Jon Walter Rosdahl
Anne-Marie Sahazizian
Malcolm Thaden
Howard Wolfman
Don Wright

*Member Emeritus

Also included are the following nonvoting IEEE-SA Standards Board liaisons:

Satish K. Aggarwal, NRC Representative
Michael Janezic, NIST Representative

Lorraine Patsco
IEEE Standards Program Manager, Document Development

Matthew Ceglia
IEEE Standards Program Manager, Technical Program Development
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

viii
CONTENTS
1. Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Glossary............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Contents description ............................................................................................................................ 2
2. Normative references.................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Definitions.................................................................................................................................................. 3
4. Organizational reliability capability ........................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Basic concepts ..................................................................................................................................... 5
4.2 Organizational reliability capability assessment usage........................................................................ 5
5. Key reliability practices.............................................................................................................................. 7
5.1 Reliability requirements and planning................................................................................................. 8
5.2 Training and development ................................................................................................................... 9
5.3 Reliability analysis ............................................................................................................................ 10
5.4 Reliability testing............................................................................................................................... 11
5.5 Supply chain management ................................................................................................................. 12
5.6 Failure data tracking and analysis...................................................................................................... 13
5.7 Verification and validation ................................................................................................................ 14
5.8 Reliability improvements................................................................................................................... 15
6. Assessment criteria................................................................................................................................... 16
6.1 Reliability capability levels ............................................................................................................... 16
6.2 Reliability capability level definitions specific to each key reliability practice................................. 18
Annex A Informative Bibliography.............................................................................................................. 23

--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

1
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This standard is not intended to assure safety, security, health, or
environmental protection in all circumstances. Implementers of the standard are responsible for
determining appropriate safety, security, environmental, and health practices or regulatory
requirements.
This IEEE document is made available for use subject to important notices and legal disclaimers. These
notices and disclaimers appear in all publications containing this document and may be found under the
heading Important Notice or Important Notices and Disclaimers Concerning IEEE Documents.
They can also be obtained on request from IEEE or viewed at http://standards.ieee.org/IPR/
disclaimers.html.
1. Overview
Traditionally, supplier selection is based on cost, logistics, technical capabilities, production volume,
quality, support locations, and other contractual factors. One of the reasons reliability does not typically
enter into the supplier selection process is the lack of an industry-accepted method to measure the
capability of an organization to develop and build reliable products. This standard provides standardized
and objective measurement criteria for assessing and quantifying the reliability capability of an
organization.
Organizational reliability capability is the measure of the effectiveness of an organizations reliability
program, practices, or activities in meeting the customers requirements for product reliability.
Organizational reliability capability reflects the ability of an organization to produce products that meet the
reliability needs of its customers. Self-assessment of reliability capability facilitates improvement of an
organizations reliability practices. Assessment of external organizations provides a means to improve the
reliability of products obtained from external suppliers. A supplier selection process that takes into account
the ability of the suppliers product to meet reliability requirements can lead to improvements in product
reliability.
Conformance with the provisions of this standard is achieved by demonstrating that the criteria in Table 1
have been used in an assessment of organizational reliability capability, and organizational reliability
capability levels have been assigned according to Clause 6.1. The word shall is used in this standard to
denote a requirement that must be fulfilled to conform to this standard.
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008
IEEE Standard for Organizational Reliability Capability

2
1.1 Scope
This document presents a standard that defines the reliability capability of organizations and identifies the
criteria for assessing the reliability capability of an organization. This standard is intended to be usable by
all organizations that design, manufacture or procure electrical/electronics components or products.
Although the concepts described in this standard could be applied to both hardware and software products,
the focus of the standard is on hardware products.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose for assessing the reliability capability of an organization is to facilitate the improvement of
product reliability. This document does not define an audit process, but rather an assessment process that is
suitable for providing data and results as input into an audit process. Reliability capability is defined by key
practices and associated metrics. This standard does not seek to create or propose creation of certifying
bodies that assess whether an organization meets the definitions of reliability capability. This standard
could be used for self-assessment by organizations or for supplier/customer relationship development
between members of supply chain.
1.3 Glossary
Many of the words used to describe organizational reliability capability have multiple meanings. For
example, the word reliability has a specific mathematical meaning, but the word is also used to mean an
entire field of engineering study. Clause 3 contains definitions of specialized terms that are used in this
document. This includes those whose meanings are not provided in IEEE 100, The Authoritative
Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms [B10], as well as those which have been defined in IEEE 100 but may
have more than one definition in that document, or whose usage in this document is based upon a different
definition.
1.4 Contents description
Clause 4 provides background information on organizational reliability capability assessment. This
background information includes basic concepts, definitions, and appropriate uses for reliability capability
assessment. Clause 5 defines the eight key reliability practices and their inputs, activities, and outputs.
These key reliability practices are the following:
reliability requirements and planning
training and development
reliability analysis
reliability testing
supply chain management
failure data tracking and analysis
verification and validation
reliability improvements
Clause 6 defines the five reliability capability levels and identifies the set of activities that are necessary to
achieve the desired level for each key practice.
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

3
2. Normative references
The following referenced document is indispensable for the application of this document. For dated
references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced
document (including any amendments and corrigenda) applies.
None. (See Annex A for an informative bibliography.)
3. Definitions
This clause provides definitions of specialized terms which are used in this document that either have not
been previously defined in IEEE 100 [B10], or can be found in IEEE 100 but either have multiple
definitions in that document or are used differently in this standard. In all cases where a single applicable
definition existed within IEEE 100, that definition is used for the purposes of this document.
3.1 activity: A set of tasks that relate to the performance of a specific function.
3.2 assessment: A planned and documented activity performed to determine whether various elements
within an organizations reliability program are effective in achieving stated objectives.
3.3 audit: An independent examination of accounts and records to assess or verify compliance with
specifications, standards, contractual agreements, or other criteria.
3.4 capability: One or more processes or activities that describe how reliability is used, treated, or
developed within an organization.
3.5 component: A piece of electrical or mechanical equipment, a line or circuit, a section of a line or
circuit, or a group of items that is viewed as an entity for the purposes of reliability evaluation. (IEEE 100
[B10])
3.6 failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA): A systematic procedure by which each potential failure
mode in a system is identified and analyzed to determine its effects on the system, leading to a
classification of potential failure modes according to their severity, occurrence, and ease of detection.
3.7 organizational reliability capability: The ability of an organizations reliability practices to ensure
that product reliability meets or exceeds its customers requirements.
3.8 practice: One or more activities that use specified inputs to develop specified work products for
achieving specified objectives.
3.9 process: A sequence of tasks, actions, or activities, including the transition criteria for progressing from
one to the next, that bring about a result.
3.10 product qualification: A set of procedures and tests performed to demonstrate the ability of a product
to operate without failure under anticipated life cycle conditions in order to transfer the product from the
engineering into the manufacturing stage.
3.11 program: The managed collection of an organizations practices that is structured to ensure that the
customers requirements and product needs are satisfied.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

4
3.12 reliability: The ability of a system or component to perform its intended functions without failure,
within design parameters, under specific operating conditions, and for a specific period of time. (IEEE 100
[B10])
3.13 reliability capability level: A measure of the effectiveness of organizational reliability capability.
3.14 reliability goal: An objective that is desirable to meet but not mandatory to meet. All activities
defined for reliability requirements can also be applied to reliability goals.
3.15 requirement: A condition or capability that shall be met or possessed by a system or system
component to satisfy a contract, standard, specification, or other formally imposed document(s). (IEEE 100
[B10])
3.16 supplier qualification: A verification whether the subject vendor has a demonstrated capability to
meet the needs of a certain prospective customer for a certain class of product or service
3.17 task: The smallest unit of work subject to management accountability. A task is a well-defined work
assignment for one or more project members. Related tasks are usually grouped to form activities.
3.18 validation: The process of determining the degree to which a model or simulation is an accurate
representation of the real world from the perspective of the intended uses. (IEEE 100 [B10]) Validation
confirms that the product, as provided, will fulfill its intended use. In other words, validation ensures that
you built the right thing.
3.19 verification: The process of determining that a model or simulation implementation accurately
represents the conceptual description and specifications. (IEEE 100 [B10]) Verification confirms that work
products properly reflect the requirements specified for them. In other words, verification ensures that you
built it right.
4. Organizational reliability capability
This standard specifies the necessary elements of an organizational reliability capability assessment,
consisting of eight key reliability practices with five levels of reliability capability. The key practices are
the foundation for criteria that shall be used by electronics manufacturers to assess their potential suppliers
or for suppliers to assess themselves. The five levels represent stages in the evolutionary transition for an
organization. To assign a reliability capability level to a key practice, a set of reliability activities have been
enumerated. An assessment based on these reliability activities can place organizations at one of the five
levels for each key practice.
This standard can be used by designers, suppliers, customers, and independent authorities to help establish
agreement on appropriate reliability practices. The standard can also be used to identify shortcomings in the
reliability program of an organization, that can be overcome by subsequent improvement actions. These
kinds of agreements and improvement actions are expected to produce increased customer satisfaction,
provide competitive advantage, and shorten the product development cycle. For the purposes of this
standard, an organization may consist of an entire corporation or agency; a specific division, business
group, or facility (site); or a team associated with a specific product or group of products.
This clause provides the necessary background for the reliability capability activities and assessment.
Clause 4.1 explains basic concepts such as reliability capability, program, process, practice, and activity.
Clause 4.2 describes how to use reliability capability assessments, and why different types of assessments
are appropriate in different situations.
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

5
4.1 Basic concepts
There are many different terms that are commonly used, often interchangeably, to categorize the hierarchy
of reliability effort expended during the product life cycle. In this standard, the terminology described in
this clause has been adopted to allow the standard to be internally consistent.
Figure 1 illustrates the hierarchical relationship among the terms activity, reliability practice, and reliability
program. An activity is a set of tasks, usually a single specific step in a reliability practice. A reliability
practice is one or more activities that use specified inputs to develop specified work products for achieving
specified reliability objectives. It is generally the lowest level at which an organization can institutionalize
reliability program improvements. A reliability program is the managed collection of an organizations
reliability practices for a specific product(s), structured to assure that the customers requirements with
regards to product reliability are satisfied.

Figure 1 Reliability practice hierarchy
Organizational reliability capability is the measure of the effectiveness of an organizations reliability
program, practices, or activities in meeting the customers requirements for product reliability. A reliability
capability assessment is the act of performing that effectiveness measurement on programs, practices, or
activities, and may be performed at any place in the reliability practice hierarchy as indicated in Figure 1.
The scope of this document is organizational reliability capability assessment of programs and practices.
IEEE Std 1413 [B2] is an IEEE reliability standard that focuses on the assessment of certain specific
reliability activities.
4.2 Organizational reliability capability assessment usage
The primary purpose of this standard is to provide criteria for assessing organizational reliability capability.
However, before performing such an assessment, it is important to address the following: (i) the purpose of
the assessment, (ii) the appropriate organizational sub-structure to assess, and (iii) the appropriate time in
the product life cycle to perform the assessment. These issues are briefly addressed in this clause.
Reliability
capability
assessment
may be
applied at
any place
in this
hierarchy
Reliability Program
Reliability
Practice 1
Reliability
Practice n
Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Activity n
Reliability
Practice 2
Reliability
Practice 3
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

6
4.2.1 Organizational reliability capability assessment uses
An organizational reliability capability assessment can be used as an aid for specifying or planning
reliability practices, evaluating reliability practices, and improving reliability practices. Generally, an
evaluation of a reliability practice leads to the identification of some shortcomings, whose fixes would lead
to an improved reliability practice.
Specifying or planning reliability practicesReliability practices would normally be specified if
product development is external or if the customer wants the reliability requirements to be achieved
in a specific manner. Reliability practices would normally be planned if product development is
implemented internally and the customer allows some flexibility in how reliability requirements are
achieved. In either case, the reliability requirements/goals of the product must be understood by the
organization, along with appropriate activities associated with those requirements/goals.
Evaluating reliability practicesThe primary purpose of evaluating reliability practices is to
determine the extent to which they are capable of providing a product that meets the reliability
requirements/goals. An ancillary purpose of evaluating reliability practices is to determine the
extent that they are capable of providing a value-added contribution to the product development
effort. Generally, an evaluation of a reliability practice leads to the identification of some
shortcomings, whose correction would lead to an improved reliability practice.
Improving reliability practicesIf the current reliability practices have been evaluated and
improvement is desired or required, a reliability capability assessment can help identify specific
activities that are needed to achieve the improvement that would be most beneficial to an
organization or customer.
An organizational reliability capability assessment can be performed by an external organization; e.g., by
another company seeking to establish a partner or supplier relationship, or by an internal organization. An
internal assessment could be performed as a normal business practice or as a response to a specific stimulus
such as customer complaints, excessive warranty costs, or a perceived opportunity to use reliability for
competitive advantage.
The format of organizational reliability capability assessments can be very general or very detailed, and
should be determined on a case-by-case basis. It is possible to tailor the organizational reliability capability
assessment to fit the needs of the contract, program, or product. The capability assessment scoring
procedure used by the supplier/organization can be quantitative or qualitative. Examples of capability
scoring criteria are provided in Clause 6.
4.2.2 Types of entities assessed for organizational reliability capability
An organizational reliability capability assessment may be performed for various subsets of people and
products within an organization, including: (1) an entire corporation, (2) a specific facility (site), (3)
specific group of products, or (4) a specific product. An organizational reliability capability assessment is
appropriate for the following:
a) An entire corporation when the organization is a small business or a new start-up corporation with a
limited product offering, especially when these products are related to an emerging technology that
has immature processes and minimal or nonexistent production or field application experience.
b) A specific facility (site) when that facility is or will be responsible for the product(s) or
technology(ies) of interest.
c) A specific group of products when there is a well-established technology or product line. The
organizational reliability capability assessment could be performed for multiple products, a
technology, multiple programs, or a project group.
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

7
d) A specific product when there is a well-established business and product that is being evaluated for
suitability. The organizational reliability capability assessment could be performed for a product
line, a single program/project, or a single product.
The determination of the appropriate organizational substructure for organizational reliability capability
assessment should also consider the product maturity, design similarities with risky products, and the
availability or lack of established field reliability performance. Design similarity with risky products refers
to various product offerings from a standard product line that uses elements of immature technology or
problematic processes.
This standard identifies tasks, activities, and practices for assessing organizational reliability capability.
The organization being assessed is not required to have a dedicated reliability engineering organization or
individuals titled reliability engineers, and it is not implied that they are required. Furthermore, the
assessment is not a measurement of product field reliability data.
4.2.3 Organizational reliability capability assessment during the product life cycle
Organizational reliability capability assessment can be performed at any stage in a product life cycle or
even independently of any specific product (see IEEE Std 15288 [B4] for information on product life
cycles). In the early stages of a products life cycle, it may be useful to perform an internal organizational
reliability capability assessment to determine if the organization has the capability to satisfy the product
reliability requirements/goals, and it may be useful to perform external organizational reliability capability
assessments to determine if there is any technology that can satisfy the product reliability
requirements/goals. In the design stage, the organizational reliability capability assessments may focus
more on specific products or manufacturing capability. In the production/support stage, reliability field data
should be available, so that an assessment can also be used as feedback on the effectiveness of various
design and manufacturing changes.
5. Key reliability practices
Defining organizational reliability capability involves the identification of a set of key practices that are
important in the development of a reliable electronic product. These key practices should encompass all
aspects of operation in the manufacturers organization from a product reliability perspective. Eight key
reliability practices form the basis of a strategy for reliability and risk management, and are important to
electronics manufacturers that aspire to achieve high capability in producing reliable products. An
organization need not align its reliability activities into the same practices described in this document, but it
is important that the key reliability activities described herein are performed during the system or product
life cycle. The key reliability practices are shown in Figure 2 and described in this clause.
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

8

Figure 2 Key reliability practices
5.1 Reliability requirements and planning
The purpose of this key practice is to understand the customers reliability requirements
1
, to generate a set
of reliability requirements for the products, to plan the appropriate reliability activities necessary to ensure
that those requirements are met, and to plan the procedures for implementing and controlling the reliability
activities in order to execute the reliability program plan. Reliability planning is a continuous process to
establish and maintain plans that define reliability activities and manage the defined activities, from
preliminary design to product maturity. The reliability program plan identifies and ties together all the
reliability activities by producing a schedule, apportioning resources, and negotiating commitments.
The inputs, activities, and outputs from this key practice are provided as follows:
a) Inputs:
Customer inputs in the form of their requirements and expectations
Competitive reliability data
Product or program plans including budget and schedule
Expected environmental and operating conditions throughout the product lifecycle
The maturity of technology to be used for the product
Lessons learned from previous product reliability experience (test results, field information,
etc.)
Applicable best practices
Applicable reliability/quality standards
b) Activities:

1
Throughout this document, all the reliability activities stated in terms of reliability requirements can be applied to reliability
goals.
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

9
Identification of available resources (materials, human resources, equipment, etc.)
Creation of reliability requirements and allocation to lower level assemblies/components
Determination of reliability analysis, reliability testing, and failure data analysis/tracking
needed to ensure the product meets its requirements
Identification of potential suppliers for the product and their reliability capabilities
Planning for resources (materials, human resources, equipment, etc.)
Identification of the logistics for getting feedback on results of reliability activities
c) Outputs:
Reliability requirements and allocation to lower level assemblies/components
A reliability program plan for the product, including the required activities in the key
practices of reliability analysis, reliability testing, supply chain management, failure data
analysis/tracking, verification and validation, and reliability improvement
A schedule and budget for conducting the planned reliability activities, and identification of
responsible individuals for the activities
Contingency planning including specification of decision criteria for altering plans and the
triggers for reliability improvement activities
NOTEThe tasks of this practice may be implemented within the following life cycle processes of IEEE Std 15288-
2008Acquisition, Stakeholder Requirements Definition, Requirements Analysis, Architectural Design, Project
Planning, Project Assessment and Control, and Measurement [B4].
5.2 Training and development
The purpose of training and development is to enhance the technical, business, and specialized strategic
skills and knowledge of people so that they can perform their roles in the design, assessment, and
manufacture of a reliable product effectively and efficiently. The aim is to generate a wide understanding of
the reliability plans, goals, and methods, and their importance for both individual contributors and
management. It also involves monitoring of innovative techniques and technologies.
a) Inputs:
Skills assessment of employees
Training records
List of competence requirements
List of roles and responsibilities
Current product technology and planned future technology
Available reliability training resources
Budget considerations and product schedules
b) Activities:
Development of a training plan for both individual contributors and management, including a
schedule, budget, and identification of training personnel (may be a combination of internal
courses, external seminars, college classes, symposiums, and so forth)
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

10
Implementation of the training plan
Monitoring new developing technologies, modeling and analysis techniques, trends, etc. that
impact reliability, and adjustment of training accordingly
c) Outputs:
Detailed understanding by reliability practitioners within the organization of reliability
concepts and statistical methods and their appropriate usage
Understanding of reliability concepts and statistical methods by design engineers
Understanding among reliability practitioners about how specific reliability activities can
impact reliability throughout the product lifecycle
Understanding among business managers and senior management about why reliability is
important to the product or business
Training of reliability practitioners, design engineers, and manufacturing engineers on failure
analysis, root cause analysis, and corrective action processes and systems
Understanding of product technology in sufficient detail to identify product failure modes and
mechanisms by reliability practitioners
NOTEThe tasks of this practice may be implemented within the following life cycle process of IEEE Std 15288-
2008Human Resource Management [B4].
5.3 Reliability analysis
Reliability analysis is used to assess a product design or field performance to identify failure modes,
mechanisms, and effects, and to make reliability predictions or estimates. Uses of the analysis results
include, but are not limited to (a) quantifying and mitigating risk for each component or sub-system;
(b) predicting and estimating operational availability; (c) establishing the warranty scheme for the product;
and (d) making arrangements for spares provisioning at service sites for expected failures during and after
the warranty period.
a) Inputs:
Product information in the form of product design, specifications, and engineering test results
Reliability requirements for the product
Expected environmental and operating conditions throughout the product lifecycle
Planned analysis activities and use of the analysis as outlined in the reliability program plan
b) Activities:
Identification of the failure implications of components and products; e.g., creation of
reliability logic diagrams
Identification of potential single points of failure for a system
Identification of potential failure modes, mechanisms, and effects for a product
Identification of criticality of failure modes and mechanisms for a product
Creation of reliability predictions at the component and product/system level
Creation of detailed component stress and damage models when appropriate
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

11
Assessment of adherence to design rules that impact reliability including derating, electrical,
mechanical, and other guidelines
c) Outputs:
Reliability logic diagrams or equivalent identification of failure implications
Identification of design risks and weaknesses for a product; i.e., critical failure modes and
mechanisms
Reliability predictions for individual components and the entire product or system
Potential component failure modes and mechanisms along with their effects and criticality
Expected field returns and spares provisioning
2008Measurement and Decision Management [B4].
5.4 Reliability testing
The purpose of reliability testing is to identify design weaknesses, explore design limits and environments,
and to demonstrate the reliability of products by running tests. The tests may be conducted according to
industry standards, organizational standards, or customer specified requirements. The reliability testing
procedures may be standard/generic schemes commonly used to test all of an organizations products, or
the tests may be custom designed for specific products using detailed product knowledge. The tests may be
used for the verification of the existence and occurrence frequency of expected failure modes and
mechanisms identified during reliability analysis. Tests may be conducted by the organization under
assessment, suppliers, integrators, customers or third-party entities such as test houses.
a) Inputs:
Expected environmental and operating conditions throughout the product lifecycle.
Reliability requirements and reliability predictions for a product/component
Planned testing activities and use of the test results as outlined in the reliability program plan
Product information in the form of product design, specifications and engineering test results
Critical items, failure modes, failure mechanisms, and failure models identified during
reliability analysis
b) Activities:
Creation of detailed reliability test plans for the product/product line including sample size for
tests and the confidence level specifications
Performance of discovery testing identifying the design margin and destruct limits for the
product
Conducting design verification testing
Conducting reliability testing including on-going reliability testing, reliability demonstration
testing, and accelerated testing
Modification or creation of supplier test requirements based on test results
c) Outputs:
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

12
Detailed reliability test plans and test results
Updated reliability predictions, critical items, and failure modes/mechanisms based on test
results
Identification of potential design weaknesses
Guidelines for manufacturing tests including burn-in and environmental stress screening
parameters
Modified supplier test plans
Test data analysis to update the component stress and damage failure models and model
parameters
2008Verification [B4].
5.5 Supply chain management
The purpose of supply chain management is to: (1) proactively identify sources of components that may be
used to satisfy reliability requirements for a product, (2) create a list of components and suppliers that the
manufacturer maintains for long-term business associations, and (3) manage the suppliers that are on
contract. This usually involves supplier assessments and audits and may lead to joint customer-supplier
reliability exploration. In addition, activities like tracking supplier product change notices, including end-of
manufacture notices, are essential for sustaining product reliability through its life cycle and for effecting
changes in product specifications or making design changes at appropriate points in time.
a) Inputs:
Parts list, bill of materials, or specifications based on functional requirements (engineering
information)
Current and previous approved supplier lists and supplier contracts
Cost and schedule requirements for a product
Information on product volume and throughput
Reliability requirements and reliability predictions for a product
b) Activities:
Creation of list of potential suppliers
Vendor or supplier selection
Supplier assessment or audits
Component qualification, including identification and evaluation of key parameters
Review of product change notices including end-of-manufacture notices
Review of component monitoring data from suppliers including process, quality, reliability
testing, accelerated test data, and field failure data
c) Outputs:
A list of preferred/qualified/approved parts and suppliers
Second source plans and contingency plans to deal with future part obsolescence
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

13
Component and supplier qualification reports and supplier audit reports
Acceptance or rejection of in-coming lots based on the supplier's historical quality data and
current reliability data
Reliability commitments in supplier agreements
Impact of product change notices on product reliability
NOTESome tasks of this practice may be implemented within the following life cycle process of IEEE Std 15288-
2008Acquisition [B4].
5.6 Failure data tracking and analysis
The purpose of failure data tracking and analysis is to collect manufacturing, functional testing, reliability
testing, and field failure data to analyze the failures, to identify the root causes of failures, to generate
failure analysis reports for all classes of failures, and to perform statistical analysis of failure data. In order
to guide corrective action and reliability improvement activities, failure analysis reports may include the
manufacture date or lot code of the failed product/component, the failure site, the failure mode and
mechanism, time to failure, and recommendations for avoiding the failure mode in existing and future
products. For each product, Pareto charts of failure causes and other statistical analyses are created and
continually updated.
a) Inputs:
Failure reporting, analysis and corrective action system (FRACAS) plan for each project,
including a failure review process
2

Failures from functional testing, reliability testing, and factory testing
Field failures, including failures from alpha/beta sites and post-warranty failures
Failure dates and operating hours (or a proxy such as shipment dates)
Customer complaints
b) Activities:
Conducting statistical analyses of functional test failure data, manufacturing test failure data,
reliability test failure data, and field return failure data
Confirmation of failure and conducting various levels of failure cause-analysis down to the
root cause of failure
Tracking history of the failed components from production through failure
Preparation of failure analysis reports identifying failure modes and mechanisms traced to
specific materials or processes
Preparation of Pareto charts and other statistical reports based on failure modes and
mechanisms
Determination of appropriate corrective actions
Analysis of data from prognostic monitoring sensors
c) Outputs:

2
This may be performed during either reliability planning or failure data tracking and analysis.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

14
Pareto charts, failure rate or time-to-failure trends, and other statistical analyses of failure
modes and mechanisms
Failure analysis and corrective action reports, appropriately documented
Updated reliability predictions based on failure data
Updated failure distribution models and parameters based on failure data
Traceability of failed components
2008Quality Management, Measurement, and Decision Management [B4].
5.7 Verification and validation
The purpose of verification and validation is to verify that planned reliability activities are implemented, to
validate that outcomes of reliability activities are consistent with outcomes from other reliability activities,
and to validate that the product meets its specified reliability requirements. This key practice is used to
validate the reliability assertions made at the design stage by comparing them with the tracked and
observed reliability during testing and usage. Product field reliability data can be compared with reliability
estimates, reliability test conditions, and warranty return estimates. Verification involves an internal review
of reliability planning, testing, and analysis activities.
a) Inputs:
Reliability requirements and planned reliability activities
Predicted and observed failure modes and failure mechanisms, from both factory testing and
field operation
Identified failure effects, failure causes, and corrective actions
Reliability predictions and observed field reliability
Pareto charts and other statistical analyses of failure modes and mechanisms
b) Activities:
Conducting internal audits to monitor progress and improve reliability plans and activities
Verification of completion of root cause analysis, corrective action, and prevention of
recurrence for appropriate factory test and field return failures
Verification that reliability commitments in supplier agreements have been satisfied
Comparison of potential failure modes/mechanisms identified in analysis or test with failure
modes/mechanisms from field returns
Comparison of predicted product reliability and failure distributions with actual field
reliability and failure distributions
Comparison of actual field reliability with reliability requirements
c) Outputs:
Results from internal audit or review of reliability activities, including opportunities for
improvement and additional training
Updates to the potential failure modes/mechanisms documentation for future products
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

15
Modification of reliability analysis methodologies and failure models used for reliability
predictions
Modification of current factory testing or future reliability testing based on product field
failures
Modification of spares provisioning
2008Verification and Validation [B4].
5.8 Reliability improvements
Reliability improvement is the identification and implementation of product changes based on lessons
learned from testing, reported field failures, technological improvements, changing product operating
conditions, or other considerations. It involves implementation of corrective actions based on failure
analysis, determining the effectiveness of those corrective actions, and preventing the occurrence of
identified failure modes and mechanisms in future products. It also involves reacting appropriately to
changes in reliability requirements for products or their lifecycle application conditions.
a) Inputs:
Failure analysis and corrective action reports
Pareto charts, failure rate or time-to-failure trends, and other statistical analyses of failure
modes and mechanisms
Updates to the potential failure modes/mechanisms documentation for future products
Change in environmental and operating conditions
Change in reliability requirements due to customer complaints, competition, changing
business climate, technological improvements, or other considerations
Lessons learned from reliability activities performed in earlier stages of product development
or on previous products
b) Activities:
Implementation of corrective actions identified through failure analysis
Monitoring the effectiveness of the corrective actions in improving reliability
Identification and implementation of changes that will prevent recurrence of identified failure
modes and mechanisms in future products
Identification of changes in product reliability requirements or their lifecycle application
conditions that may require subsequent action
Evaluation of developing technologies, modeling and analysis techniques, trends, etc. that
could be used to improve reliability of products
Documentation, review, and communication of lessons learned
Identification and implementation of corrective actions that will improve reliability in
response to product reliability requirement changes
c) Outputs:
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

16
Implementation of corrective actions for identified failures, including selection of appropriate
implementation scope (e.g., spares swap-out, field swap-out)
Tracking of the effectiveness of corrective actions
Modified bill of materials or supplier selection based on field reliability data
Updated product reliability requirements and changes required to meet the updated
requirements
Documented record of lessons learned
Enforcement of recurrence prevention for identified failure modes and mechanisms
Inclusion of new field failure modes and mechanisms in future reliability analysis
Updated design and manufacturing guidelines for future products based on field data
2008Quality Management [B4].
6. Assessment criteria
The performance of reliability activities is expected to vary widely by organization and perhaps by products
developed within an organization. Some organizations may be very consistent in performing the key
reliability practice activities while others may be more ad hoc in some or all of the practices. The
assessment provides an evaluation of organizational capability from a product reliability perspective. The
assessment criteria shall be used to evaluate the completeness and consistency of the reliability activity
performance. The results of the process will help an organization select process improvement strategies by
determining their current reliability capability and identifying the most critical issues regarding product
reliability improvements. The assessment results can also be used to steadily improve organization-wide
reliability practices to enable continuous and lasting gains in organizational reliability capability.
As described in Clause 4, an organizational reliability capability assessment measures the effectiveness of a
reliability program, the practices, and the activities used by an organization in meeting customer
requirements. A set of five reliability capability levels is used for this assessment. Each of the eight key
reliability practices shall be individually assessed with reference to a specified set of activities required to
obtain a specific capability level. There is no intent to combine the key reliability practice capability levels
into a single overall measure of organizational reliability capability.
6.1 Reliability capability levels
From a reliability program perspective, a high capability level implies that a particular reliability practice
within an organization is well understood, is supported by documentation and training, is being continually
monitored and improved by the users, and is effective and efficient.
A key reliability practice of an organization can be assigned five levels of capability that represent stages in
the evolutionary transition of that practice. These five levels represent the metrics or measures of the
organizational reliability capability. Associated with each capability level is a set of activities for each key
reliability practice. For an organization to achieve a specific level of reliability capability, all the activities
listed at that level and all lower levels that are not superseded by activities at higher levels shall be fulfilled
for all eight key reliability practices.
3
The definitions of reliability capability levels are provided below.

3
An exception arises when a reliability activity conducted at a lower level is made redundant by an activity at a higher level.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

17
6.1.1 Level 1
Level 1 is defined by the absence of qualities linked to the higher levels. Companies at this level are
essentially ad hoc in their approach to reliability. These organizations are characterized by a lack of
consistent procedures and an ad hoc, or sometimes chaotic nature of design, manufacturing, and reliability
practices. The reliability practices, if any, are often changed or modified as a reaction to crisis situations.
Reliability performance depends primarily on the capabilities and motivation of individuals, in the absence
of any effort at the organizational level. As a consequence, these organizations generally produce products
with inconsistent levels of reliability.
6.1.2 Level 2
Level 2 is characterized by consistent and repeatable design, manufacturing, and reliability practices. At
this level, reliability activities are minimal but disciplined enough so that successes can be repeated.
Reliability activities such as testing are based on generic organizational standards or prior experience with
similar products rather than taking into account unique characteristics of the product. Practices that satisfy
established organizational standards or that have become accepted by industry are repeated. These
organizations are able to deliver products that can show conformance to codes, standards, and
requirements. However, they make only minimal use of reliability data, and reliability improvement is
based mainly on significant field reliability issues or customer complaints.
6.1.3 Level 3
At level 3, organizations understand and define the reliability requirements for their products. There is a
standardized and consistent documentation for reliability activities, and a common understanding among
employees about their roles and responsibilities. At this level, reliability training is provided for most
engineers and managers to ensure that the employees have the knowledge and expertise to fulfill their
assigned roles. They consider product lifecycle environmental and operating conditions in reliability
activities. These organizations are responsive to test and field failures and conduct analysis of all failures.
They make some design or manufacturing test modifications based on test and field failure modes. They
invest resources in supplier management and reliability improvement activities that include using lessons
learned for existing products, but are not as proactive at using reliability lessons learned on future products.
6.1.4 Level 4
At level 4, organizations change product designs based on reliability consideration. Reliability plans are
detailed, and the defined reliability activities are specifically tailored to the product being developed. All
employees are trained to appreciate the impact of reliability on the business. These organizations evaluate
reliability very early in the product lifecycle and can change product designs to achieve desired reliability
targets. These organizations enlist their supply chain members to help them ensure product reliability. They
make some design or manufacturing test modifications based on test and field failure mechanisms as well
as failure modes. Reliability is expressed as a distribution rather than a point estimate, and detailed stress
and damage models may be included as part of reliability prediction. All the failure mechanisms affecting
the reliability of the products are investigated and documented. These organizations are proactive in
preventing the recurrence of failure modes and mechanisms in future products. They promote the
establishment of closed-loop processes to utilize existing reliability lessons learned and formally identify,
approve, and distribute new reliability lessons learned.
6.1.5 Level 5
At level 5, reliability is considered an integral part of strategic business planning, and organizational
reliability capability is aligned with business goals. Organizations are characterized as being responsive,
adaptive, and proactively focused on continuous reliability improvement across product lines. The feedback
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

18
from different stages of a product life cycle, such as predictions, simulations, testing, analysis, and field
performance, is disseminated widely throughout the organization and incorporated in future products.
These organizations use experience not only to correct problems but also to change the nature of the
reliability practices that they use. They are proactive in assessing the effects of technology or business
climate changes on product reliability and reliability requirements. They proactively plan to accommodate
changes in supply chains, manufacturing processes, and technology. They treat reliability as an attribute to
be optimized in the lifecycle cost of a product. They are proactive at sharing reliability lessons learned with
other organizations and using them on future products.
6.2 Reliability capability level definitions specific to each key reliability practice
Table 1 defines the reliability capability level definitions specific to each of the key practices described in
Clause 5 by delineating a set of activities that shall be performed to obtain a specific capability level. The
activities are cumulative, meaning that all activities for a lower capability level, except those which are
superseded by higher level activities, shall be completed in addition to the activities for the specified level.
For example, to obtain a capability level 3 for a key practice, the activities listed in level 2 shall also be
completed. All activities at level 1 are superseded by better practices at higher levels.
Table 1 is a set of criteria that must be considered in an organizational reliability capability
assessment. Organizations may want to tailor the criteria to better suit their particular product or
industry, but the eight key practices must be evaluated. In particular, an organization may want to
specify how the key reliability activities are intended to be performed to a much greater level of
detail, i.e., specifying a set of tasks that make up each activity.
Notes on the activities in Table 1:
Activities at lower capability levels tend to be reactive while activities at higher capability levels
tend to be more proactive.
Activities involving failure modes tend to be at a lower capability level than activities involving
failure mechanisms. The term failure mode refers to the effect or symptom by which the failure
mode is observed. The term failure mechanism refers to the physical, chemical, or other processes
that result in failure. The identification of the circumstance that induces or activates the process,
often called the root cause, is considered to be included in reliability activities involving failure
mechanisms.
Reliability program planning is considered part of the reliability requirements and planning key
practice while detailed plans, e.g., test sample sizes, are considered part of other key practices, e.g.,
reliability testing.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

19
Table 1 Reliability capability level definitions specific to the key reliability practices
Reliability requirements and planning Training and development
Level 1

Reliability plans and requirements are
informal or nonexistent.
Informal quality or reliability training may be
provided to some employees, but no sustainable
program is evident.
Level 2 Reliability requirements exist, based on
customer inputs or requirements,
existing products, and/or competitive
information.
A reliability program plan with a list of
scheduled activities exists.
A list of reliability training opportunities is
provided.
Reliability practitioners are trained in reliability
concepts and statistical methods for reliability
prediction and data analysis.
Reliability training is made available to the
design organization.
Level 3 Reliability requirements take into
account environmental and operating
conditions.
Reliability requirements are allocated to
lower level assemblies/components.
The reliability program plan includes a
list of required resources such as
materials, personnel, and equipment.
Program plans include planned
reliability activities with responsible
individuals identified.
There is evaluation of potential
suppliers for new technology to identify
reliability risks.
Reliability practitioners, design engineers, and
manufacturing engineers are trained in root cause
analysis and corrective action.
Training records are maintained.
Reliability management is trained on how
specific reliability activities can impact reliability
throughout the product lifecycle.
Business managers appreciate how reliability
impacts business.
Level 4 The reliability program plan is tailored
for the specific product and adapted to
knowledge gained throughout the
product lifecycle.
Product reliability requirements are
expressed as a distribution instead of a
point estimate when appropriate.
Reliability requirements include
utilization of lessons learned.
Reliability and statistics courses are specifically
tailored for design and manufacturing engineers.
Reliability practitioners are trained to identify
failure modes and mechanisms relevant to the
technology used in a specific design.
Training is provided to senior managers to
appreciate how reliability impacts business.
Level 5

Contingency planning is used.
Decision criteria, such as business or
marketing considerations, for altering
the reliability requirements are
identified.
Reliability is considered an integral part
of strategic business planning.
New technologies, trends, and reliability
modeling or analysis techniques that impact
product reliability are constantly tracked, and
training is adjusted accordingly.
Proactive support for reliability training across
the organization is provided by top management.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

20
Table 1Reliability capability level definitions specific to the key reliability practices (cont.)

Reliability analysis Reliability testing
Level 1

Reliability analysis is non-existent or inconsistent
and mainly based on manufacturing issues.
Testing is primarily functional.
Level 2 Point estimates of product reliability predictions are
created based on modeling or reliability prediction
handbooks.
Potential critical failure modes are identified and
informally documented.
Reliability logic diagrams or equivalent
identification of failure implications are created.
A generic reliability test plan exists.
Reliability testing is based on
customer specifications or industry
standards.
Products are subjected to functional
testing before shipping.
Design verification and product
qualification tests are conducted.
Level 3 Potential failure modes and their effects, especially
single points of failure, are identified and
documented.
Potential critical failure mechanisms are identified
and informally documented.
Field reliability data and reliability test data for the
product of interest or similar products are used to
make or adjust reliability predictions.
Reliability predictions are used for warranty return
estimation and spares provisioning.
Adherence to design rules that impact reliability,
such as derating, is confirmed.
Design changes initiate a re-evaluation of product
reliability.
A detailed reliability test plan exists,
including test sample size and
confidence limit specifications.
Reliability testing is based on
potential failure modes and
environmental and operating
conditions.
Reliability test requirements for parts
supplied by vendors are modified if
appropriate.
Reliability test results are used to
make design changes in products
prior to production.
Tests to identify design limits are
conducted for all products.
Level 4 Reliability predictions are expressed as a
distribution instead of a point estimate when
appropriate.
Reliability predictions include confidence limits.
Models for specific failure mechanisms are used to
make reliability predictions for products when
appropriate.
Reliability analysis is used to design specific
reliability tests for products.
Changes in environmental or operating conditions
initiate a re-evaluation of product reliability.
Accelerated tests are tailored for
expected failure mechanisms
throughout the product lifecycle.
Manufacturing burn-in/screening is
designed to address known early life
failure mechanisms.
Tests to identify destruct limits are
conducted.
Level 5

Lifecycle costs of a product are optimized based on
reliability vs. cost trade-offs.
Detailed component stress and damage models are
created when appropriate.
Reliability analysis to determine reliability risk is
included in initial evaluation of new technologies.
Reliability test data is used for
component stress and damage model
parameters.
Reliability testing is performed
during evaluation of new
technologies.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

21
Supply chain management Failure data tracking and analysis
Level 1

Part and supplier selection is mainly based on part
functional characteristics and price.
Failures during functional testing may
be recorded.
Level 2 Approved parts and supplier lists are created.
Supplier assessments or audits are conducted for all
new suppliers of critical components.
Components are qualified for use in their intended
applications based on supplier data or limited
functional testing.
Second source plans are created as appropriate.
Factory test failure data and field
reliability data are collected and
regularly reported.
Pareto charts or other decision aids
based on failure data are created.
Failure analysis and corrective action is
conducted for major failures.
Level 3 Design specifications contain reliability requirements.
Periodic supplier assessments or audits are conducted
for all suppliers of critical components.
Approved parts and supplier lists are created and
maintained based on supplier assessments or audits.
Selection of critical component suppliers includes
evaluation of component field reliability, if available,
in the current or similar products.
Suppliers of critical components are required to
conduct self-assessments, qualify their parts and
suppliers, and perform failure analysis and corrective
action on field failures.
Product change notices, including end-of-manufacture
notices, are evaluated for their effect on product
reliability.
Failure data are reported and used to
guide selection of products and failure
modes for root cause analysis.
Failure confirmation and root cause
analysis is conducted on critical failures
from all sources including development
test, manufacturing, and field failures
(possibly on a sample basis).
Cross-functional team meetings are
conducted for all major failures with
the results recorded and disseminated,
including corrective actions.
Time-to-failure data is collected and
analyzed.
Reliability predictions are updated
based on failure data.
Level 4 Acceptance of critical component shipments is based
on evaluation of supplier reliability data for that
shipment.
Technology maturity is considered during the selection
of components.
Suppliers conduct on-going assessments of their
suppliers, flow down customer requirements to
suppliers, and demonstrate continuous improvement.
Failure analysis reports include details
on underlying failure mechanisms.
Failure mechanisms are traced to
specific materials or processes.
Failure distribution models and
parameters are updated based on failure
data.
Part traceability exists such that failures
can be associated with specific
manufacturing dates/lots/processes.
Level 5

Changes in product environmental and operating
conditions, reliability requirements, and/or technology
trigger a reassessment of parts and suppliers.
Key component parameters are periodically re-
evaluated to identify shifts.
Contingency plans to deal with future part
obsolescence are developed.
Key suppliers are engaged in a joint exploration of the
effect of processes, materials, and technology on
product reliability.
Links between customer satisfaction
and failure analysis/corrective action is
understood.
Data from prognostic monitoring
sensors is analyzed and used to
predict/prevent future failures.
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

22
Verification and validation Reliability improvements
Level 1

Verification and validation activities are
informal, based on individuals rather
than process.
Process and product reliability
improvements are non-existent or
undocumented.
Level 2 Management verifies that the reliability
program plan is being followed.
Field reliability data is compared to
reliability requirements and predictions.
Predicted field returns are compared to
actual values to adjust spares
provisioning.
Corrective action implementation is
verified.
Design and process changes that may affect
reliability are documented, e.g., using
engineering change notices.
Corrective actions in response to
significant field failures and customer
complaints are implemented.
Bills of materials are modified to exclude
parts or suppliers with poor field reliability
performance.
Level 3 Supplier management verifies that
reliability commitments in supplier
agreements have been satisfied.
Manufacturing test results such as stress
screening and on-going reliability testing
are compared to product field failures,
and tests are modified appropriately.
Observed field failure mode data is
compared to predicted failure modes and
used to appropriately modify reliability
analysis and reliability test
methodologies.
Corrective actions in response to
significant internally-identified failures are
implemented.
Effectiveness of corrective actions is
tracked.
Identified failure modes are used to prevent
recurrence in future products.
Reliability improvements are identified and
implemented in response to changing
environmental or operating conditions.
Level 4 Internal reviews of reliability activities
are performed and used to identify
opportunities for improvement and
additional training.
There is verification that potential failure
modes/mechanism documentation is
updated and used to prevent recurrence
in future products.
Observed field failure mechanism data is
compared to predicted failure
mechanisms and used to appropriately
modify reliability analysis and reliability
test methodologies.
Identified failure mechanisms are used for
preventing recurrence in future products.
New modeling and analysis techniques are
evaluated and implemented to improve
product reliability evaluation.
Lessons learned from reliability activities
performed previously are documented,
reviewed, and communicated.
Reliability improvements are identified and
implemented in response to changing
business conditions and lessons learned.
Level 5

Observed field failure mechanism data is
compared to predicted failure
mechanisms and used to update
component stress and damage models.
Reliability predictions match observed
field reliability.
New technologies are evaluated and
implemented to improve product
reliability.
Design rules are updated based on field
failure information.

-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-
IEEE Std 1624-2008

23
Annex A
Informative
Bibliography
The following documents provide useful information that can help a user during the implementation of this
standard:
[B1] IEEE Std 1332-1998, IEEE Standard Reliability Program for the Development and Production of
Electronics Systems and Equipment.4
[B2] IEEE Std 1413-1998 (Reaff. 2003), IEEE Standard Methodology for Reliability Prediction and
Assessment for Electronic Systems and Equipment.
[B3] IEEE Std 1413.1-2002, IEEE Guide for Selecting and Using Reliability Predictions Based on
IEEE 1413.
[B4] IEEE Std 15288-2008, IEEE Systems and Software EngineeringSystem Life Cycle Processes.
The following references were used as source material during the development of the standard and provide
useful information on background and previous work that contributed to the conceptualization and
formulation of different portions of this document:
[B5] Bamberger, J. Essence of the Capability Maturity Model, Computer (June 1997): pp. 112114.
[B6] Brombacher, A.C. Maturity Index on Reliability: Covering Non-technical Aspects of IEC61508
Reliability Certification, Reliability Engineering & System Safety vol. 66, no.2 (Nov. 1999): pp. 109120.
[B7] Conti, T. Organizational Self-Assessment. London: Chapman and Hall, 1997.
[B8] Cushing, M.J., D.E. Mortin, T.J. Stadterman, and A. Malhotra. Comparison of Electronics
Reliability Assessment Approaches, IEEE Transactions on Reliability vol. 42, no. 4 (December 1993): pp.
542546.
[B9] Fraser, P, J. Moultrie, and M. Gregory. The Use of Maturity Models/Grids as a Tool in Assessing
Product Development Capability, IEEE International Engineering Management Conference IEMC 02,
vol. 1 (2002): pp. 244249.
[B10] IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh Edition, New York,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
[B11] IEEE Std 1332-1998, IEEE Standard Reliability Program for the Development and Production of
Electronics Systems and Equipment.
[B12] IEEE Std 1413-1998 (Reaff. 2003), IEEE Standard Methodology for Reliability Prediction and
Assessment for Electronic Systems and Equipment.
[B13] IEEE Std 1413.1-2002, IEEE Guide for Selecting and Using Reliability Predictions Based on
IEEE Std 1413.
[B14] IEEE Std C37.10-1995, IEEE Guide for Diagnostics and Failure Investigation of Power Circuit
Breakers.

4
IEEE publications are available from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854,
USA (http://standards.ieee.org/).
--`,`,`,,`,```,,``,`,``,`,,```,`-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
IEEE Std 1624-2008

24
[B15] Ke, H-Y., and C-P. Hwang. Reliability Programme Management Based on ISO 9000,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management vol. 14, no. 3 (1997): pp. 309318.
[B16] Pecht, M.G., and F.R. Nash. Predicting the Reliability of Electronic Equipment, Proceedings of
the IEEE vol. 82, no. 7 ( July 1994): pp. 9921004.
[B17] Sander, P.C., and A.C. Brombacher. MIR: the Use of Reliability Information Flows as a Maturity
Index for Quality Management, Quality and Reliability Engineering International vol.15, no.6 (Nov.Dec.
1999): pp. 439447.
[B18] Tiku, S., M. Azarian, and M. Pecht. Using a Reliability Capability Maturity Model to Benchmark
Electronics Companies, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management vol. 24, no. 5 (2007):
pp. 547563.
[B19] Tiku, S., and M. Pecht. Auditing The Reliability Capability Of Electronics Manufacturers,
Proceedings of ASME InterPak03, the International Electronic Packaging Technical Conference and
Exhibition (Maui, Hawaii, USA.) (July 611, 2003).
[B20] _______. Reliability Capability Assessment Methodology, Proceedings of IMAPS Brazil 2003, the
International Technical Symposium on Packaging, Assembling and Testing & Exhibition, Campinas (SP,
Brazil) (August 68, 2003).
[B21] Tiku, S., M. Pecht, and J. Strutt. Organizational Reliability Capability, Proceedings of Canadian
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (Ottawa, Canada) (October 1617, 2003).
[B22] United States Department of Defense. Reliability Program for Systems and Equipment
Development and Production, MIL-STD-785B (September 15 1980).
[B23] Van Donk, P.K., and G. Sanders. Organizational Culture as a Missing Link in Quality
Management, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management vol. 10, no. 5 (1993).
[B24] Williams, K., N. Robertson, C.R. Haritonov, and J. Strutt. Reliability Capability Evaluation and
Improvement Strategies for Subsea Equipment Suppliers, Journal of the Society for Underwater
Technology vol. 25, no. 4 (2003).
-
-
`
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
`
`
,
,
`
`
,
`
,
`
`
,
`
,
,
`
`
`
,
`
-
`
-
`
,
,
`
,
,
`
,
`
,
,
`
-
-
-

IEEE Standard For Organizational

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IEEE Standard For Organizational

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

IEEE Std 1624

Anda mungkin juga menyukai