Director's Note

MIL-HDBK-217 OR NOT?

Who in the reliability and maintainability communities hasn't heard the controversy over whether MIL-HDBK-217 "Reliability Prediction of Electronic Equipment" has merit as part of the design/development process? The US Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) has led much of the assault on 217 including the push to introduce a "science based" MIL-STD-785, "Reliability Program for Systems and Equipment Development and Production" based on physics-of-failure approaches to reliability. The Air Force's Rome Laboratory (formerly Rome Air Development Center) is delegated responsibility for 217 by the Department of Defense.

You've undoubtedly read the war of words in many of the favorite R&M periodicals over the last few years. Of all these words I think the ones that make the most sense are those of "MIL-HDBK-217 - A Favorite Target" (1993 Reliability and Maintainability Symposium paper) by Rome Laboratory's Seymour Morris and Jim Reilly. I know that you're probably thinking that I may be biased after working at RL for years; I say, read the paper and judge for yourself. Morris doesn't conclude that 217 is the complete answer and that "physics-of-failure" has no merit; but instead, he presents a detailed comparison of the two approaches including criteria such as the devices covered by each approach, the application cost, and the assumptions used. He concludes that each approach has its place because each attacks a different problem; the physics-of-failure approach addresses basic component design, while 217 addresses latent defects. I suggest that you keep an open mind on this issue and take the time to read the RAMS paper.

Preston R. MacDiarmid
Director

Back to
Journal Index

User Guide

Products
and Services

Contacting
RAC

*Related
*WWW Sites

Home

From the Reliability Analysis Center Webserver. Comments or questions can be submitted using e-mail or telephone at (315) 337-9933. (Last update: December 1, 1993, jmc)