This is just an Excerpt from a larger document, click here to view the entire document.Reliability vs. Affordability?
The preceding discussions show a synergy between reliability and affordability. Yet, there have been times when program managers felt they "could not afford reliability." Comments such as these were often based on a concept of "inspecting in" reliability, in which laborintensive inspections were used to cull out defective products, rather than the prevention of defects through control of the production process. Also, in the absence of integrated product and process development, reliability reviews were often put in series with design, resulting in a time consuming and expensive review and redesign cycle, or, often, the neglect of reliability considerations entirely. In these cases, reliability efforts could indeed oppose affordability, since their expense raises the purchase price and their inefficiency (relative to other approaches to reliability) does not permit the reduction of the "downstream" costs enough to make them attractive investments.
IPPD, and other reliability design efforts, do require an investment in design time. However, this investment can be recouped in development by the elimination of the need for redesign, be rewarded handsomely during production through the reduction of rework and scrap, and result in an impressive return on investment when life cycle costs are considered.
Done properly, design for reliability is an enabler of affordability.