Every reliability engineer has been there.
• The DFMEA is done… but is it grounded in reality?
• The FTA looks clean… but are we missing something?
• The test plan is solid… but will it catch the right failures?
You’ve got your risk analysis tools open, the architecture looks sound… but deep down you’re wondering:
“Are we really capturing how this system behaves under variation?”
Fast forward to verification— the test results are in.
Something doesn’t add up. A failure mode appears that wasn’t in the FTA. Or worse — the assumptions behind your DFMEA didn’t hold up. The load path shifted. An interface you didn’t account for became active. The system didn’t fail as expected — it failed somewhere else.
That’s why we’ve been talking about integrating robust design and kinematic architecture into risk management.
Because when you break down system functions — like activation force — and map the interfaces that carry the load, you start to see what DFMEA often misses.
You see not just what should happen, but what could happen when variation kicks in.
✔ You identify hidden interfaces that might activate under tolerance stack-ups
✔ You test your assumptions before they collapse under real-world conditions
✔ You connect architecture, function, and risk — not just fill out a form
Let’s be honest: DFMEA and FTA are powerful tools. But when they’re done in isolation, or based on idealised behaviour, they can become either too creative or too shallow. They miss the unknowns. They assume the system behaves as intended — even when we know it often doesn’t.
So, here’s a question for you:
- Do you also see the gaps in how we apply risk management tools?
- Would you like to integrate design and architecture better to boost the analytical part of achieving high reliability?
Let’s challenge the status quo. Let’s make our risk assessments as robust as the systems we’re building.
Contact Us
Reach out to our Life Science Expert Team to learn more.
By submitting, you accept RD8's Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.