Category

Service Lifecycle Management (SLM)

Mar 13
Salem Witch Trials (Joseph Elber, 1892)

Method to Reduce No Fault Found Rates

By Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) 3 Comments

Service Technician Develops a Robust Method to Reduce No Fault Found Rates in PCBs

No Fault Found (NFF) is a notoriously difficult problem. Also referred to as no trouble found (NTF) and no problem found (NPF), the term and associated metrics are used to describe a phenomenon where a service technician replaces a part in order to repair a failed piece of equipment. When the part is returned to the factory for quality analysis or for repair and re-certification, diagnostic tests do not detect any problem.

The rate of No Fault Found parts can be quite high. For example, in a study I conducted several years ago, I found that the average no-fault-found in consumer electronics rate was between 15% and 20%. This is an average across many products and replacement parts. When examining NFF by part and failure modes, the situation is often much graver. For example, I witnessed NFF in excess of 70% in certain avionics and automotive electronic parts. Read More

Jan 29

Automotive Service Revenue Will Increase

By Automotive, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) No Comments

Automotive Dealers Anticipate Growth in Service Revenue

Revenue Growth

Source: Automotive News Dealer Survey, Jan 2014

Recent dealerships survey conducted by Automotive News clearly shows that automotive dealers see service operations as an important source of revenue, almost on par with new car sales.

 

 

 

Headcount Increase

Source: Automotive News Dealer Survey, Jan 2014

Considering the cyclicality in new car sales, it is prudent to invest in increasing headcount and advanced service tools to generate higher- margin service revenues.

 

Jan 28

Tesla: to Recall or Not to Recall?

By Automotive, Autonomous, Connected, Electric, Shared Vehicles, Service Lifecycle Management (SLM) No Comments

NHTSA issues a recall for Tesla Model S. Elon Musk: “the word ‘recall’ needs to be recalled.”

The back and forth between Elon Musk and NHTSA about Tesla Model S fire incidents and other safety related issues continues. Musk maintains that the recent software update to change the Tesla Model S ground clearance in order to reduce the likelihood of debris damage, of the type that might have led to battery damage and fire, is not a “recall.” Tesla initiated the software update voluntarily, before NHTSA completed its investigation and ruled in on this issue. At some point during NHTSA’s investigation, Musk twitted: “the word ‘recall’ needs to be recalled.”

Musk is, of course, correct that Tesla is able to reduce the headache to consumers and the cost that are associated by recall campaigns by updating the vehicles software over the air, an technique referred to as firmware-over-the-air, or FOTA.

However, a campaign (this is NHTSA’s formal term for ‘recall’) to rectify a design flaw or a quality defect is still a recall, especially if required by NHTSA and is subject to the TRAED Act of 2002.

On January 13, NHTSA issued a recall order number 14V006000t to address overheating charging plugs in Model S. Tesla will issue an over-the-air update to reduce the charging current, and will mail owners a replacement charging adapter equipped with an internal thermal fuse.

Again, Tesla is demonstrating the use of technology to improve the efficiency and efficacy of archaic practices used in the automotive industry. But a recall is still a recall, and even Tesla isn’t immune against design and quality issues that might require a recall campaign from time to time.