Forum: Reliability & Maintainability Questions and Answers
Topic: Reliability & Maintainability Questions and AnswersTopic Posted by: Reliability & Maintainability Forum (firstname.lastname@example.org )
Organization: System Reliability Center
Date Posted: Mon Aug 31 12:47:36 US/Eastern 1998
Original Message:Posted by: Barry Ma (email@example.com )
Date posted: Tue May 15 21:33:00 US/Eastern 2001
Subject: PRISM vs. 217
"It would be more proper to say that PRISM is the successor to the 217", Gary Sunada described when replying a post of "Calculated Failure Rate vs. Field Failure Rate" May 14. MIL-HDBK-217 has many shortcomings and should be updated. People have been talking about this for years. Now the RAC has presented the PRISM to the Reliability world. Can we have more detailed explanations on the improvements made from 217 to PRISM like "What and how were those shortcomings overcome by PRISM?" For example, one of the critics to 217 is that it is based on component failure data. But the component reliability has been improved a lot over the last three decades. The component failure no longer constitutes a major reason for modern electronic system. Many other failure modes were not incorporated into 217. If this is true, how does PRISM handle the issue? Thank you.