Failure Mapping Provides “Mystery Moves” to Identify Failure Mode

In the sport of whitewater rafting, there is something called a “mystery move” in which the kayaker intentionally tips his boat over at one point in the stream, remains underwater for some interval then reappears at another point downstream. The objective of the mystery move is to avoid an area of surface turbulence by passing under it.

While most rational people would view this step as being one that is illogical and risky, it seems to work. This approach begs the question: Why endure any more trouble in going from point A to point B than is absolutely necessary?

The practice of Failure Mapping provides a tool for the process of addressing failures of physical systems that is similar to a mystery move. Rather than requiring a cumbersome step by step process of study, diagnosis and troubleshooting leading to the actual failed component, data collected by Failure Mapping can allow the most likely Failure Mode to be identified almost as quickly as a properly structured Malfunction Report is filed.

In Failure Mapping, the initial problem report is identified in terms of the impaired function and the specific behavior being observed. The Malfunction Report ultimately becomes two lists from which the Function and Behavior are selected. After the problem has been solved and the repair task is closed, the Failure Mode is entered as the component that was replaced or repaired and its condition. The Failure Mode ultimately becomes another set of lists from which Component and Condition is selected.

Over time, statistics of failure modes will begin to take clear patterns. Some portion of a specific Malfunction Report will be closed with a specific Failure Mode. Another portion of the same Malfunction Report will be closed with another Failure Mode. Still another portion of the same Malfunction Report will be closed with yet another Failure Mode. The statistics or frequency of each Failure Mode will be based on the robustness of various components that can cause specific Malfunction Reports and the frequency that each Failure Mechanism occurs.

As an example, let’s assume that over time as a specific Malfunction Report (Function – Behavior) is closed, it results in 70% of Failure Mode A (Component – Condition), 25% of Failure Mode B and 5% of Failure Mode C.
Rather than starting through a long process of diagnosis and troubleshooting the next time this Malfunction Report is issued, the most efficient repair method is to attack Failure Mode A first. This will produce a 70% likelihood of success. If a repair of Failure Mode A is not successful, go directly to Failure Mode B. This will produce a combined 95% likelihood of success.

While the conventional technique of identifying problems is a form of mapping, it is the cumbersome kind of mapping analogous to travelling over land from one place to another. By comparison, Failure Mapping is more akin to travelling by air. The map from one airport to another simply identifies the starting point and the ending point.

This article introduced the following concepts:

• “Mystery Moves”
• Failure Mapping
• Malfunction Report (Function that has been impaired – Behavior being observed)
• Failure Mode (Component that was replaced or repaired – Condition of that component)
• The statistical relationship between Malfunction Reports and various Failure Modes

If readers would like to comment on these or any other closely related issues, they are invited to do so.