Competition in Failure Analysis?
- PDF / 103,431 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 60 Downloads / 262 Views
EDITORIAL
Competition in Failure Analysis? Michael E. Stevenson
Published online: 18 August 2012 Ó ASM International 2012
To the readers of the Journal, it might seem a bit odd that I am discussing competition in the failure analysis community in the forthcoming October 2012 issue. I must confess, however, that this editorial was written in July 2012, at the time of the summer Olympics. It could be said that there is no place for competition in the failure analysis community. While our purely design-focused colleagues are the most easily identifiable engineers with competition as part of their charge, their mission looks a bit different than ours. Their mission, while oversimplified, can be stated for the purposes of my thesis as ‘‘make something new, make something better.’’ Our mission, again a gross oversimplification for the purposes of my thesis, is ‘‘figure out why that happened.’’ Extending beyond the inter-engineering comparisons, one might just as reasonably as possible suggest that there is no place for competition in failure analysis. There is no outcome to determine, only a truth to be found. I would suggest that, commerce aside, it is a gross oversimplification. M. E. Stevenson (&) Engineering Systems Inc., 6190 Regency Parkway, Suite 316, Norcross, GA 30071, USA e-mail: [email protected]
While systematically investigating an event is a simple search to uncover the truth, the process and landscape are ripe with competition. I have been very fortunate in my career thus far to have been able to visit literally hundreds of failure analysis laboratories of widely varying sizes and scopes. Labs that are purely investigative, labs that are ad-hoc, and labs that are supremely funded and granted mandates to conduct their work by government entities. The spectrum of apparent capability is massive. It is not hard to see the parallel with sport. In any particular sport contested at the Olympic level, there are always favorites and underdogs. Teams with massive resources and those with meager resources. The outcome in competitive sport is often governed by the resources, but is more clearly linked, in my opinion, to the level of effort expended in the effort toward preparation. The parallel in failure analysis is often the identification of the critical link or piece of evidence that makes the others fall into focus. I have heard it being referred to as the ‘‘Perry Mason moment’’ by some, but we all know it when we recognize it. These moments are not a simple function of the budget. They are not a simple function of the technological capability or vintage of the laboratory where the inquiry is being conducted. They most certainly are not a simple function of the talent level of the investigator. The efficiency, accuracy, and precision of getting to that moment in the investigation of a failure, when it occurs, are not merely the products of a simple step-by-step process either. They still, in my opinion, revert back to the focus and preparation of the investigator(s). This returns to the broader competitiv
Data Loading...
