Maximize the Benefit of your EAM’s Scheduling Module

Maximize the Benefit of your EAM’s Scheduling Module

Most facilities take little advantage of the scheduling capability of their Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) System. This is in part to the way this information is displayed. Experience has shown that many rely on exporting the scheduling data to an Excel spreadsheet and use this as their weekly schedule. This format is, of course, limited to the functionality of Excel as a scheduling platform. On the occasion where Microsoft Project is used, data is manually entered to generate the schedule.

If you can easily get your scheduling data from the EAM system into an Excel spreadsheet, a Microsoft Project is really minutes away. A standard week schedule project format can be created as a template. Use this as the basis for future weekly schedules. Once your scheduling data is in Excel format, it can be easily imported into Microsoft Project. The Excel spreadsheet and Microsoft Project column headers must match and data imports directly field to field from Excel to Project. Simply verify print format and you now have a Microsoft Project schedule based on your EAM system scheduling data.

The Importance of Asset Criticality

The Importance of Asset Criticality

Here’s the scenario. You’re a recently hired Asset Manager/Reliability Engineer and you’ve been tasked with defining and implementing plant-wide Reliability initiatives. Your initial assessment reveals a significant number of asset breakdowns, overall asset health is degrading, and reactive/emergent maintenance is the norm. It’s a daunting task and you’re not entirely sure where to begin.

When determining which assets to address first, the asset criticality/priority matrix should serve as your guide. Initiatives such as RCM, FMEA, Bill of Material (BOM) development, PM/PdM application, etc., should be targeted toward the most critical assets first with an eventual progression towards the least critical. In your new role, you should first review the Master Equipment List (MEL) for completeness, accuracy and prioritization. Properly ranked/prioritized assets take into consideration all aspects of an organization and have been ranked using mathematical formulas or quantitative analysis, thus eliminating the “gut” feel and subjectivity from the ranking process. Criticality criterion regarding Maintenance, Production/Operations, Safety, Environmental and Quality should be developed and personnel from the aforementioned departments should be represented during the ranking process. An added benefit to having asset criticalities is greater accuracy when prioritizing work during Planning & Scheduling activities. So in conclusion, utilize those asset criticalities to “eat the elephant” one bite at a time and make an overwhelming task seem much more manageable and achievable.

Work Order Maintenance Tip

Work Order Maintenance Tip

When is a work order truly complete? There’s more to work order completion than simply performing the actual maintenance tasks and changing the WO status to “Complete” within the CMMS. Although tasks will vary depending on the type of work performed, consider the following activities to ensure a successful WO completion.

• Perform general housekeeping activities and return the work area to an operating condition. Work area should be clean of rags, grease/oil, trash, etc. and all items have been properly disposed. Scaffolding, safety barrier tape, etc. is removed as required.


• The Craft have notified Operations personnel that the equipment is ready for Post Maintenance Testing (PMT). Job related LOTO is removed and equipment PMT is satisfactorily performed.


• All unused job material/parts are returned to stores.


• All specialty tools and equipment are returned to their proper location.


• All work permits are closed-out as required.


• WO completion information is captured (hardcopy/electronically in CMMS)
  
  • Detailed description of work performed
  
  
  • Proper Failure Code information is documented (Failure/Cause/Remedy)
  
  
  • As Found/As Left conditions
  
  
  • Any materials not originally issued/purchased against the WO. Compare against the asset BOM and Job Plan to see if these materials should be added.
  
  
  • Labor hours for all craft
  
  
  • Start/Finish time
  
  
  • Job Plan feedback such as missing material, inaccurate procedures and improvements.
  
  
  • Recommendations for adjusting PM frequency
  
  
• If follow-up work is required (additional repairs, modifications, etc.), a separate WO should be entered into the CMMS.


• If the nature of the work met the requirements to trigger a Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA), all documentation, failed parts, etc. should be provided to individuals responsible for conducting the RCFA.


• If a repairable spare was removed, ensure the spare is returned to the appropriate location for repairs and the “move” history of this spare is captured using the CMMS rotating item/asset functionality.


• If a new asset was installed, ensure all related information is captured and updated in the CMMS including nameplate information, the asset BOM, Job Plan and PM/PdM information, etc.


• New PdM baseline readings are taken as required.


• Drawings and schematics are updated to reflect any changes.


• All change control documentation is completed as required.

A properly completed work order will benefit many departments within an organization. For example, good housekeeping practices align with a facility’s safety and environmental directives. Storeroom & purchasing personnel will use this information to streamline their inventories and improve their services to the craft person. Detailed and accurate job plan feedback will improve the planning & scheduling process. Reliability engineering personnel will use this information to improve asset reliability. Incorporating the aforementioned work order closeout activities as a part of the work control process is crucial for a facility if they’re to achieve their overall asset management and reliability initiatives.

Don't Let Them Shut You Down: Part 3

Don't Let Them Shut You Down: Part 3

Also to consider is OSHA code 29 CFR Part 1910.119. The section listed below specifically states that equipment will be maintained and the history of maintenance will be documented. It goes one-step further by identifying safe operations as part of the requirement.

1910.119(d)(3)(iii)

• For existing equipment designed and constructed in accordance with codes, standards, or practices that are no longer in general use, the employer shall determine and document that the equipment is designed, maintained, inspected, tested, and operating in a safe manner.

1910.119(j)(3)

• Training for process maintenance activities. The employer shall train each employee involved in maintaining the on-going integrity of process equipment in an overview of that process and its hazards and in the procedures applicable to the employee's job tasks to assure that the employee can perform the job tasks in a safe manner.

1910.119(j)(4)iv

• The employer shall document each inspection and test that has been performed on process equipment. The documentation shall identify the date of the inspection or test, the name of the person who performed the inspection or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment on which the inspection or test was performed, a description of the inspection or test performed, and the results of the inspection or test.

1910.119(j)(5)

• Equipment deficiencies. The employer shall correct deficiencies in equipment that are outside acceptable limits (defined by the process safety information in paragraph (d) of this section) before further use or in a safe and timely manner when necessary means are taken to assure safe operation.

A significant factor in maintenance is the potential for change in a piece of capital equipment. In the Texas City BP case study, there were several pieces of instrumentation that had been changed without proper documentation. This affected several business processes downstream, specifically, startup procedures. Due to historical events like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has created excellent guidelines for configuration & change management.

10 CFR 50.65

• (a)(1) Each holder of an operating license for a nuclear power plant under this part and each holder of a combined license under part 52 of this chapter after the Commission makes the finding under § 52.103(g) of this chapter, shall monitor the performance or condition of structures, systems, or components, against licensee-established goals, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that these structures, systems, and components, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, are capable of fulfilling their intended functions. …When the performance or condition of a structure, system, or component does not meet established goals, appropriate corrective action shall be taken….


• (4) Before performing maintenance activities (including but not limited to surveillance, post-maintenance testing, and corrective and preventive maintenance), the licensee shall assess and manage the increase in risk that may result from the proposed maintenance activities. …


• (b) The scope of the monitoring program specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall include safety related and non-safety related structures, systems, and components, as follows:


• Safety-related structures, systems and components that are relied upon to remain functional during and following design basis events to ensure the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposure comparable to the guidelines in Sec. 50.34(a)(1), Sec. 50.67(b)(2), or Sec. 100.11 of this chapter, as applicable.


• Non-safety related structures, systems, or components:


• That are relied upon to mitigate accidents or transients or are used in plant emergency operating procedures (EOPs); or


• Whose failure could prevent safety-related structures, systems, and components from fulfilling their safety-related function; or


• Whose failure could cause a reactor scram or actuation of a safety-related system.

Some may suggest that in addressing CFR’s, all that is necessary is to draft a procedure or policy. That may be true until the production process has a failure that affects product quality (e.g. Pharmaceuticals) or people are injured or killed (e.g. Chemical Processing, Pharmaceuticals, Aviation, Manufacturing). This exposes the company to higher risk and has the resultant negative publicity. In regulated industries, federal marshals can walk in with a warrant and walk out with executives in handcuffs.

The most basic parts of a reliability program will address compliance requirements, mitigate or eliminate failures and reduce the cost to maintain assets that fall under various CFR’s. The reason for this is the components of a comprehensive reliability program go deep into the business processes across organizational units as well as the company as a whole. In addition, new regulations or stringent enforcements of existing regulations may not become necessary.

In order to have a successful reliability program there must be the following components:

• Maintenance History Tracking


• Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)


• Materials Specification Requirements


• Materials Stores Management (MRO)


• Management of Change (MOC)


• Maintenance Business Process


• Design for Reliability

These components provide a foundation to build good data on the asset base, thus improving equipment health. The information gathered gives the entire business unit the power to make well-informed decisions. Everything from product quality to throughput capacity can be identified in the context of reliability.

Taking the road to reliability enables the organization to do the right thing for its company and the community in which the company resides. Eliminating failures and exceeding regulatory requirements will reduce government intervention and lead toward a more proactive organization/environment. Less government oversight will reduce operating expenses once thought necessary to achieve compliance.

Don't Let Them Shut You Down: Part 2

Don't Let Them Shut You Down: Part 2

Another significant event was the power outage in 2003, which blacked out parts of New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The congressional investigation focused heavily on the system failures from the overloading of the grid. They talked about weak infrastructure and an aging power grid.

However, the root cause of the system wide failure was not discussed. According to the investigation, deferred maintenance was the initial cause.

Several trees scheduled for trimming contacted power lines in Ohio, tripping the first substation. Why this occurred is not discussed, but new regulations were introduced just as fast as Congress could write them. Among them was a new requirement for tree trimming to a specific distance from the power line.

In March 2005, the Texas City, TX BP refinery experienced an explosion that was felt for miles. This particular event was responsible for the deaths of 15 people and injuries to another 180 people.

The explosion occurred during the startup of a raffinate tower after a maintenance shutdown. There were many factors in this case which contributed to the resulting explosion. Among them, operator fatigue, outdated standard instructions, and malfunctioning instruments among others.

This event also had a more obvious management connection. BP’s drive toward cost cutting had reduced head counts and forced the plant to rely heavily on contract labor. There had also been a halt put on any work efforts to update the process equipment. Much of the Texas City equipment had outlived its planned life cycle. This series of decisions and equipment health created the potential for a large disaster, and the worst-case scenario was realized.

The Reliability Connection

Maintenance is not a passive player in the events listed above. It was an integral part of each incident and contributed significantly to the outcome. A holistic reliability approach to the maintenance programs in each of these cases could have prevented their occurrence and outcomes.

The link lies in understanding the Codes of Federal Regulation (CFR). There are several common themes in CFR’s that a comprehensive reliability program will address and/or exceed.

21 CFR Part 211.67; FDA
Equipment cleaning and maintenance.

• (a) Equipment and utensils shall be cleaned, maintained, and sanitized at appropriate intervals to prevent malfunctions or contamination that would alter the safety, identity, strength, quality, or purity of the drug product beyond the official or other established requirements.


• (b) Written procedures shall be established and followed for cleaning and maintenance of equipment, including utensils, used in the manufacture, processing, packing, or holding of a drug product. These procedures shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:


• (1) Assignment of responsibility for cleaning and maintaining equipment;


• (2) Maintenance and cleaning schedules, including, where appropriate, sanitizing schedules;


• (3) A description in sufficient detail of the methods, equipment, and materials used in cleaning and maintenance operations, and the methods of disassembling and reassembling equipment as necessary to assure proper cleaning and maintenance;


• (4) Removal or obliteration of previous batch identification;


• (5) Protection of clean equipment from contamination prior to use;


• (6) Inspection of equipment for cleanliness immediately before use.


• (c) Records shall be kept of maintenance, cleaning, sanitizing, and inspection as specified in 211.180 and 211.182

The example contained in the FDA code illustrates this reliability connection. Section (a) and (b) specifically instruct the company to identify responsibilities for maintenance and draft standard work procedures.

40 CFR Part 68.73; vessel mechanical integrity

• Written Procedures


• Training For Process Maintenance Activities


• Inspection and Testing


• Equipment Deficiencies (“Operator shall correct deficiencies…”)


• Quality Assurance (“Correct Materials, Correct Design, Proper installation.)

This EPA Regulation is specifically for vessel integrity. This is an example where industry specific codes are addressed through a comprehensive reliability program. Note, there are statements in the code requiring written procedures, training and corrective actions for equipment deficiencies.

Don't Let Them Shut You Down: Part 1

Don't Let Them Shut You Down: Part 1

Maintenance and Regulatory Compliance

Many maintenance organizations do not realize how they are affected by regulatory compliance. However, much of what Maintenance does has a direct affect on compliance with federal regulations and can cost the company millions of dollars if their actions cause an out-of-compliance situation.

Understanding this from within maintenance organizations varies from complete ignorance to maintenance by decree. The latter is a maintenance strategy that is defined by fear of the regulatory bodies and causes paralysis when trying to adopt proactive maintenance strategies. On both ends of the spectrum, reactive maintenance is the prevailing strategy and changing to a true proactive reliability program is very difficult. Regardless of their understanding of the regulations which governs their business, the maintenance program is most likely not mitigating equipment failures. This, therefore, leaves the organization open to risk and regulatory oversight.

New Regulations

When the unhappy constituents of a congressional district or local government entity call their representatives, it is often the starting point of new regulations. Specific events can also drive the government to draft new regulations or increase enforcement of existing ones. This call for action becomes, particularly, loud when people are hurt or killed because of corporate neglect.

It is important to understand how and why new regulations start because this understanding is the key to preventing further creation of new ones or heavy-handed enforcement of existing ones. Both of these things can be avoided if we as industrial professionals take a proactive approach.

There are many recent events that have caused significant news coverage and bad publicity for all of industry. Some events have led to congressional investigations. It is a bad day for maintenance and engineering when a CEO has to testify on Capitol Hill for a catastrophic equipment failure that affects the public. Maintenance has moved into the limelight, and is receiving public attention, perhaps for the first time in the history of “wrench turning”.

Case Studies

Many examples of maintenance culpability have been documented and reported on in the last several years. All of the events mentioned within many of the case studies written could have been avoided if a well-developed maintenance plan and reliability program were in place.

On April 4 2008, the FAA grounded Southwest Airlines 737-300 aircraft in order to perform airframe inspections. While there was no impact to the public in terms of safety, this event became high profile because of news reporting.



According to the investigation reports, Southwest had deferred several airframe inspections. These inspections were to identify cracks in the fuselage of a certain size. Upon closer examination of this case, it turns out that the inspection had been developed by Southwest and far exceeded the minimum requirements of Boeing. Even the FAA recognized this as a non-critical inspection and as such, issued a non-mandatory airworthiness bulletin.

“A progressive inspection for fuselage skin cracking was initially distributed to operators in the form of a "non-mandatory" Service Bulletin (SB) that provided "risk mitigation" actions that operators were encouraged to incorporate into their maintenance program. This Service Bulletin was based, in large part, on an inspection program developed by Southwest Airlines. …cracks in the fuselage skin on the Boeing 737 airplanes were identified and mitigated well before they could pose a safety of flight issue. …the FAA did not regard the skin cracking as an "immediate threat" to the safety of flight of the airplane.”

Even though the FAA deemed there to be NO Safety risk with these deferments, they fined Southwest Airlines $10MM and delayed thousands of passengers. The lesson to take away from this event is, “Do what you tell the regulators you are doing.”

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 5

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 5

Costs – Top performers begin with some form of gap analysis to understand the current state of relevant practices and to measure gaps that exist between current state and top performance. From that point, calculating costs to close gaps is objective and fairly accurate. Major investment categories typically include:

• Development of Corporate Standards for work management, materials management, configuration change management and reliability excellence


• Development of a Roll-out and Implementation Strategy taking advantage of work done at one plant as appropriate for other plants


• Creation or Improvement of Foundational Information (Functional Location Hierarchy, Master Equipment List, Spares Materials Catalog, Bills of Material/Parts Lists)


• Objective Criticality Ranking of Equipment


• Methodical Analysis of Failure Modes, using combination of Reliability Centered Maintenance Analysis (RCM), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), and templating where appropriate, to determine the optimum PM and PdM activities that need to be deployed for your population of equipment


• Based on methodical analysis, perform PM Optimization, eliminating unnecessary PMs, deploying recommended PdM, and creating the PM/PdM work orders in the CMMS system to automatically schedule these activities


• Creation of Balanced Metrics Measurement system


• Training and Awareness


• Culture Change and Rewards System Alignment


• Compliance Monitoring and Continuous Improvement

There is a lot of guidance that can be used to estimate the costs of closing gaps, but for purposes of this article, suffice to say that while these costs are not insignificant, in the context of the benefits and the financial business case, they are almost always easily justifiable, with typical Returns on Investment (ROI) from 8:1 to 16:1 and higher, and with Internal Rates of Return (IRR) from 50% to 250% or higher.

Summary:

Well, in summary, what do we know and what do we believe?

• We know what good looks like, and a big part of that picture can be summed up with the phrase “More Predictive and Less Preventive”. We know that Predictive Maintenance is driving a large percentage of work on a daily basis at the top performing plants, and this, of course, is good news for the readers of this magazine. Our time has come!


• We know that the top performers achieved their success using remarkably similar practices – regardless of their industry, so we shouldn’t spend a lot of time debating what good looks like.


• We know that you can’t piecemeal your way to prosperity - the top performers attacked the opportunity holistically – weaving all of the aspects of a top-level practice carefully together to unlock the hidden benefits.


• We know that even the top performers have been unable to uniformly elevate their maintenance and reliability practices across the entire enterprise, and we believe there are good business reasons for trying to do so, including reduced cost of implementation company-wide (vs. taking a plant-by-plant approach) and increased ROI.


• We believe the size of the opportunity is three quarters of one Trillion dollars annually in the U.S. alone, and could exceed $2 Trillion world-wide!
  
• We know the direct benefits will come from maintenance spend reduction, spare parts inventory reduction, reduced energy consumption, improved quality, reduced scrap and increased throughput/asset utilization.


• We believe there is a correlation between success of any corporate improvement initiative – whatever it is - and improved reliability practices. The indirect benefits come from unlocking hidden benefits in other parts of the business previously thought to be unrelated to reliability, and they can be substantial.

Finally, we know that the financial business case for reliability – including predictive maintenance - is here, and the awareness in your executive suite is emerging. If you are involved in predictive maintenance, I urge you to be confident in what you are doing because the role you are playing is essential for your corporation to achieve success – and the executives in your company are figuring that out!

Robert S. DiStefano
Chairman and CEO
Management Resources Group, Inc.
Southbury, Connecticut

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 4

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 4

How Big Are The Benefits?

Recently, we studied statistics from the United States Department of Commerce, including their measurement of what they call “Net Stock of Private Fixed Assets” in various industries. This measurement is a close proxy of Replacement Asset Value (RAV). In 2003 (the latest statistics available from the USDOC), there were $4.9 Trillion of physical assets on the ground in United States industry. We applied our Four Quartile Benchmark Statistics of Maintenance Spend as a percentage of RAV, and we dollarized the value of elevating Fourth Quartile plants to the First Quartile in maintenance spend, moving the Third Quartile plants to the First Quartile, and moving the Second Quartile plants to the First Quartile. As you can see from the following chart, industry wastes approximately $183 Billion in excess maintenance spend annually in the United States alone!


* Calculated from Department of Commerce Current-Cost
Net Stock of Private Fixed Assets in 2003 (Total $4.9 Trillion)

Further, we can assume from numerous published case studies that three to seven times the maintenance spend reduction benefit is accomplished in operational benefits (including increased uptime, improved quality, more efficient production scheduling, reduced waste, reduced energy consumption, reduced inventories, etc.). Taking the conservative end of that statistic (three times maintenance spend reductions), you can see from the chart that another $553 Billion in “Productivity Losses” can be re-claimed through the maintenance and reliability improvements, making the financial business case in the United States alone $738 Billion in annual, recurring benefits. What is this number world-wide? Good question. We are currently trying to quantify that with good data, however our intuition is that, if the U.S. opportunity is conservatively estimated at three quarters of one Trillion dollars, the world-wide annual benefits could be $2 Trillion or more!

The following chart depicts the Reliability Adoption Life Cycle.


Assuming that 25% of plants have figured this all out (top quartile), the market is at the Early Adopter/Early Majority stage. 75% of plants have improvements to make and work to do. If we look for an example of a company that has uniformly elevated their practices fleet-wide, there are no examples, so we are still looking for the innovators. It should be pointed out though, that attacking the opportunity fleet-wide will ease the journey by reducing the level of effort necessary to implement the practices and make the changes. Attacking this fleet-wide should leverage work done once for reuse avoiding the re-inventing of reliability over and over again. The resultant lower investment should make it easier to justify the expenditures for foundational and culture change work, enhance the Return on Investment and speed the Rate of Return.

What Are the Benefits in Your Company?

Quantifying the potential benefits, as well as the likely costs to improve performance, in your corporation, is necessary. Here is some guidance.

Benefits - Here are some of the major benefit categories with some guidance on how to calculate the potential:

• Maintenance Spend Reduction: Calculate your maintenance spend as a percentage of Replacement Asset Value (RAV), and dollarize the improvement to top quartile performance (approximately 2 – 4% of RAV or better). If you are currently spending 5 – 6% or more, this benefit could be significant. The benefit comes from eliminating unnecessary work, working more efficiently, reducing the need for abundant stocked spares, eliminating collateral damage thereby reducing use of spare parts, reducing use of contractors, reducing overtime.



• Inventory Reductions: Calculate your stocked inventory value (include satellite spares, etc.) as a percent of RAV, and dollarize the improvement to top quartile performance (approximately 0.5% - 1.5% of RAV). The actual reduction will yield on average $0.20 cents on the dollar of reduction (some inventory will have to be scrapped). This is a one-time benefit. In addition, the recurring annual avoided carrying costs will be on average 25% of the full inventory reduction value – annually.



• Energy Consumption Reduction: Published guidelines show us that smoother running rotating equipment and leak-free operation of water, steam and compressed gas handling equipment will consume from 3% to 14% less energy (electricity, fuel).



• Increased Uptime: Increased Asset Utilization can have a variety of substantial financial benefits to a company, including selling more product on the existing capital assets (assuming the demand for the additional product is present), or reducing the cost of goods made on the capital assets through more stable operations (even if the demand for additional product is not present). Two downtime areas should be targeted: Unscheduled Maintenance-related Downtime and Scheduled Maintenance Downtime. Unscheduled Maintenance-related Downtime can eventually be almost eliminated. Scheduled Maintenance Downtime in a plant heavily dependent on time-based Preventive Maintenance strategies can be reduced by from 30% to as much as 60% (depending on the starting point). Dollarizing the value of this varies from business to business, however remember that these benefits can be as much as 3 to 7 times larger than the maintenance spend reduction!



• Improved Quality: Typically, scrap material and rejected/returned off spec product is measured accurately in most corporations. Calculate the value of the scrap material and assume that between 5% and 16% of that value can be eliminated through sound reliability practices. In addition, calculate the value of the rejected/returned product and assume that between 1% and 5% of that value can be eliminated through sound reliability practices. These statistics will vary business to business.

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 3

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 3

Of course there are many studies that prove planned work is significantly less expensive than unplanned work. In addition, a work mix more heavily weighted toward PdM will drive costs down, as the following chart summarizing one study shows:



In addition, a well-planned work order provides ample time for an experienced and skilled craftsperson to perform a precision repair that should result in more reliable operation once the machine is restored to service. A second lesson learned from the top performers is that a holistic approach to changing practices, recognizing that the benefits cannot be unlocked by attacking individual components of the entire strategy, must be employed. If only the Maintenance people are involved in the process, it won’t drive results. The entire organization must be involved to unlock the benefits. And, all aspects of the strategy must be addressed simultaneously. You cannot piecemeal your way to prosperity. For example, planning and scheduling cannot improve if we don’t fix the work identification system. We can’t identify work objectively and early (before collateral and catastrophic damage occurs) without extensive use of PdM and condition monitoring. “Results” work orders will never be slotted into the schedule unless the operators understand and trust the technology. This is just a small example of how every aspect of the strategy acts as a link in the chain. If any link is missing, or broken, the entire strength of the chain is compromised.

A third, and perhaps critical lesson we take from the success stories, is that the culture change required to accomplish success is recognized early as a significant impediment to success, and the top performers incorporated all kinds of tools and methods to address culture change, including awareness training, consistent measurement systems, alignment of performance to rewards, etc. In fact, the top performers believe that the most challenging part of their journey was the “softer side” of the problem. If we think in terms of people, process and technology (which many companies do today), not surprisingly it is the people aspect that is the most challenging. Despite our intuition that this is true, most companies fail to dedicate the proper amount of attention and resources to this aspect. Many companies complain that their CMMS system has not delivered the promised results, but the CMMS alone cannot deliver reliability. Concentrating primarily on the process and technology does not result in sustainable higher performance.

So the key catch phrases for top performers include:

• More predictive and less preventive


• PdM used broadly and applied deeply into the asset base


• Objective and early work identification


• Planning & Scheduling the PM/PdM Results


• Integrated, holistic approach – you can’t piecemeal your way to prosperity


• Culture change is more than half the battle

Performance Yet to Achieve:

Despite the success stories that should guide us with their consistent practices, even the successful companies that have achieved great results have done so in individual plants or business units. None of the case studies for success have demonstrated uniform elevation of these practices enterprise-wide, at every single plant. In addition, the success that is evident is still somewhat (if not highly) dependent on influential leaders without whom the performance is not sustainable. In other words, in some of these companies, the changes have yet to be institutionalized for sustainable performance and continuous improvement. This of course takes time, resources and perseverance, and it should be pointed out that some of the companies recognize this and are actively addressing it.

If we are looking for a parallel to guide us in institutionalized and sustainable change across the entire enterprise, we need look no further than the area of safety. Those of us who are old enough can remember a day when safety was a responsibility of a limited number of people in a department. Today, safety is knitted into the fabric of every industrial company, and it is everyone’s responsibility. It is part of the way we do business. Safe working practices are enabling other business performance improvements that would not be possible otherwise. It is worth referring here to the chart below showing the remarkably direct correlation that has been established between Injury Rate and Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), presented some time ago by Ron Moore of The RM Group, Inc.



I have been preaching for quite a few years that reliability needs to become knitted into the fabric of our companies much like safety has. Why do I believe this? Every corporate improvement initiative, whether it is related to Lean Manufacturing, TPM, Six Sigma, Quality Circles, Supply Chain Optimization, Market Share Increase, Cost-of-Goods Reduction, Value-added Services, Increase in Sales, Asset Utilization Leverage – no matter what it is - it is my belief that success in these initiatives is either directly or indirectly enabled and enhanced by the reliability, stability and dependability of our physical assets. My contention is that there are incremental benefits related to all of these programs that are “locked” without addressing a fundamental foundational aspect of our business – namely rendering our physical assets reliable – and doing so efficiently. Could the injury rates at the companies that show direct correlation have gone down to those levels without reliable assets? I say no. With particular regard to Lean, we have seen or heard of cases where significant lean principals were applied in manufacturing plants only to uncover previously hidden reliability issues. With all of the flexibility and wasted movements removed from the plant, unreliable or unstable assets result in larger production penalties because there is no flexibility to adjust and react. So I argue that business performance can actually degrade if Lean is implemented in the absence of establishing a reliable and stable asset base. In any event, if this foundation is in place, I believe that incremental benefits for the corporation can be un-locked, and the performance of the company, in whatever part of the business the “C” suite is focused on, will improve.

Gladly, the people in the executive suites of our industrial companies are beginning to understand this – partly because they have witnessed dramatic business performance improvements in the early adopter companies. The CEO of Chevron Corporation, Mr. Dave O’Reilly, said in a recent letter to employees that “Reliability, like safety, is a critical element of operational excellence and requires our constant attention.” The Vice President of Operations at Anheuser Busch, Michael Harding, said in a recent public speech to the Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, that “As goes Maintenance, so goes the business”. There are more examples of executives focusing on maintenance and reliability. If you want to develop a financial business case in your company, find out what initiative the CEO is concerned with, and I guarantee you that reliable assets will materially contribute to the results of that initiative – either directly or indirectly. This environment of increased awareness and understanding bodes well for a significant elevation of maintenance and reliability business practices.

Nonetheless, some obvious impediments stand in the way of uniform, enterprise-wide performance, including:

• Lack of Executive Initiating Sponsorship


• Lack of Executive Sustaining Sponsorship


• Lack of Defined Standards


• Lack of Consistent Basis for Measurement


• No Ties Between Performance and Compensation


• Lack of Systems to Efficiently Leverage Work Done at One Plant to Other Plants

There are others as well but these are major ones. Perhaps a good way to express what we believe is necessary within a large corporation to elevate practices uniformly across the entire enterprise, is to use the chart below. This chart shows a wide variation of maintenance spend across a fleet of plants in a typical corporation (shown by the blue curve). The goal in our view is to reduce the variation in your corporation (shown by the green curve). This would mean that there is less variation in performance from plant to plant, and, presumably, the level of performance is elevated beyond what it could be by simply attacking the opportunity plant-by-plant.



It should be noted that we know of no company in existence today that has achieved uniform elevated levels of reliability performance across the entire enterprise – fleet-wide. Several companies are vying for the notoriety, but more importantly, the business performance that will come if this is achieved.

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 2

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 2

Of note in the top performers is the depth into the asset population to which these multiple PdM technologies are applied. For example:

• From 63% to 95% of rotating machines (depending on the industry) are included in a robust vibration analysis program – not just the critical equipment!


• 91% to 100% of electrical equipment is included in a robust thermography program (incidentally, 58% to 79% of mechanical equipment is also included in the thermography program at top performers, particularly smaller motors and gearboxes in packaging and similar operations)


• Lubrication analysis and contamination control practices are extensive and comprehensive


• Use of Motor Circuit/Current Evaluation (MCE) technology for drivers is extensive


• Extensive use of ultrasonics (airborne and contact) and various nondestructive testing (NDT) technologies for piping and pressurized assets is also present at top performers


• And again, only 20% to 25% of the equipment population in a top performing plant is covered by traditional, time-based, invasive PM

This last bullet is worth emphasizing a bit. After World War II, it was believed in general industry (despite knowledge to the contrary in the aerospace and airline industries and some branches of the United States military) that most equipment behaved in a time-based predictable pattern – that-is, that the probability of failure was relatively low and constant until a so-called “wear-out” zone was reached, at which time rapid and exponential increase in failure probability occurred. Traditional time-based Preventive Maintenance was designed to intervene into the equipment right before the wear-out zone was reached. See the diagram below taken from RCMII by John Mobray:



In reality, a precious small percentage of equipment actually behaves in this fashion. In fact, as the following diagram below (again taken from RCMII by John Mobray) shows, there are many failure patterns of machinery behavior, and only about 11% of the equipment in a typical industrial plant has a time-based predictable “wear-out” zone:



Note the phenomenon of infant mortality, depicted above by the initial high probability of failure upon commissioning an asset into service. About 72% of equipment in a typical industrial plant (this of course varies by industry) experiences infant mortality, while, again, only about 11% has a time-based predictable wear-out pattern. By relying predominantly on PM as a maintenance strategy for most of our assets, we are potentially adding value on a small percentage of equipment, and potentially introducing infant mortality on a high percentage of our assets – unnecessarily – doing more harm than good. I remember coming out of engineering school in the mid-1970’s and arriving at a nuclear power plant full of vigor with great ideas, and being confronted by a school of thought that held “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. At the time, I thought these folks were unaware of the science of machinery behavior. It turns out that I was the one that was uninformed. They knew intuitively and based on their experience that machine failure was very likely shortly after doing work on that machine. They may not have known the engineering behind the experience, but they were right.

We are not saying that we shouldn’t do anything to our machines until they fail. We are saying that while most of our machines do not have the time-based predictable wear-out pattern, failure is predictable on a large percentage of our equipment using predictive maintenance and condition monitoring. Eliminating the unnecessary PMs and introducing PdM enhances our ability to proactively manage our assets to be more reliable, and reduces the cost of maintenance at the same time!

At the top performers, these PdM technologies are the primary work identification system. These PdM technologies are actually driving about 80% of the daily work. Again, the performance characteristics at top performers are remarkably similar regardless of industry. Here are some highlights of top-quartile work-flow:

• Over 50% of the daily work order hours are related to the PdM program
  
  • 15% Collecting and Analyzing Condition Information
  
  
  • 35% Performing PdM “Results” Corrective Work (PdMr)
  
  
• About 30% of the daily work order hours are related to the PM program
  
  • 15% Collecting and Analyzing Condition/Operating Parameters
  
  
  • 15% Performing PM “Results” Corrective Work (PMr)
  
  
  • Less than 20% of the daily work orders were initiated via a traditional work request from equipment operators

Keep in mind that the use of the PdM technologies objectively identifies corrective work based on real science and real data, and the early and objective identification of machine faults, if acted upon properly, should avoid catastrophic failure and collateral damage, meaning that the repairs that are made are typically less extensive, using less labor and less parts. This all drives costs down.

Traditional work identification based largely on the “five-senses” of the equipment operators provides inadequate time to effectively plan corrective work, which handicaps schedule compliance, which undermines the credibility of and trust in maintenance on the part of the operators, and so on. The domino effect is clearly present here if the root cause of the problem – work identification - is not addressed. A top-quartile objective work identification system, based on comprehensive PdM, allows the Planners to plan the “PMr” and “PdMr” Corrective work orders. By virtue of early and objective machine fault identification, these work orders can be effectively planned because we have ample time. Once planned these work orders can be advanced to a ready-to schedule status – feeding a more effective scheduling process. This in turn allows wrench-time f the maintenance workers to approach (and in some cases exceed) 50% (note that the average wrench-time in the United States industrial plant is about 28%). This also eventually will allow the equipment operators to trust the schedule and actually prepare the work-site and the equipment for the scheduled repair.

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 1

Elevating Maintenance and Reliability Practices The Financial Business Case: Part 1

Introduction:

In this inaugural issue of Uptime Magazine, it is my distinct pleasure to write this feature article that will attempt to put the technical and engineering aspects of maintenance and reliability into business terms – essentially into the context of a financial business case that is hopefully interesting and natural for the readers of this magazine and for the most senior-level executives in industrial corporations world-wide. Hopefully, this article will help you to make the translation and adjust your language, strategy and tactics to communicate to top executives and people not directly involved in maintenance, the tremendous business value associated with elevating maintenance and reliability practices in your company. In this article, I will discuss:

• The current state of maintenance and reliability, the level of awareness among business executives of financial business performance that can be achieved with top level reliability practices, and “what good looks like” in the few successful companies which have reached top quartile performance and enjoyed significant benefits


• Performance yet to achieve - even by the top performers


• Statistics showing the potential benefits in United States industrial companies and how that might extrapolate out to companies world-wide


• What the business case might be at your corporation

Current State, Awareness & What Good Looks Like:

As recently as five years ago, I think it is fair to say, there was very little awareness at the corporate executive suite level of the contribution to financial and business performance improvements that can come from improved levels of physical asset reliability. In addition, I think it is fair to say, five years ago we did not enjoy an accepted consensus among industry experts about what good maintenance and reliability practices look like. If we asked what are the characteristics exhibited by top performers who have increased operational performance of their physical assets - while reducing the overall cost of production (including reducing the cost of maintenance), we were likely to get varying answers depending on who was asked. In fact, as recently as five years ago, there were no true success stories in this arena. There were some spotty, incremental achievements, but no enterprise-wide success stories.

Today, although there are only a handful of companies that have, in fact, seriously elevated their maintenance and reliability practices, and improved business performance as a result, those few companies provide ample data that paints a very consistent picture of what good looks like and what results can be expected. Companies like Rohm and Haas, Allied Signal/Honeywell, Dofasco Steel, and, more recently, Cargill Corporation, among a few others, have made dramatic shifts in their physical asset management strategies that have driven significant financial results in many parts of their businesses. Several lessons should be taken from these success stories.

First, the characteristics exhibited by these “Early Adopters” are remarkably consistent regardless of the industry in which they operate. These characteristics generally but clearly show:

• Annual maintenance spend below 2-3% of Replacement Asset Value (RAV)


• Significant use of a variety of Predictive Maintenance (PdM) and condition monitoring technologies on the majority of the candidate equipment population


• LESS time-based, invasive preventive maintenance (PM) – less than 25% of the equipment population in a top performer is covered by time-based invasive PM

Balanced Criticality Ranking

Balanced Criticality Ranking

As we all know, in the world of maintenance and reliability, there are hundreds of things vying for attention. How do we decide where to expend our valuable resources? It doesn't matter if we're talking about money, people, time, effort, materials or contract help; we want to focus on the equipment that is most critical and valuable to our operation, but which equipment is that? The answer to that question comes in the form of using a quantifiable and objective criticality ranking process.

The objective of performing a criticality ranking on you asset base is to determine which assets are most important to the overall operation. Traditional ranking or priority codes often differentiates equipment by using an "A-B-C" or "Hi-Med-Low" type of ranking. The problem with this ranking is that it is often done by one person and is very subjective and often no more than an educated opinion of one person. How many of us have these types of codes in our systems? How many of us never actually use the coding for any type of decision making?

Let's look at it another way. If you were to evaluate your equipment using the A-B-C method above would you get the same answer if you asked the Maintenance Manager and the Operations Manager to rank a piece of equipment? How about if you asked the Safety Department? The Environmental Manager? How about the Quality Control Manager? With this method there is a good chance you will have differing opinions and if you extrapolate this across all of your equipment then you can see that you may get conflicting priorities.

Our Maintenance Tip is utilizing a ranking process that is objective and quantitative and incorporates ranking criteria for all of the primary function and areas of concern. We usually use the five functional areas of Maintenance, Production, Safety, Environmental and Quality. We then utilize a cross-functional team to develop subjective weighted criteria based on business requirements for each of these functional areas. An example of the weighted criteria for the "Maintenance" Functional Area would be:

• Down Time Impact - What is the potential downtime impact if this equipment fails
  None 0 pts Minutes 125 pts Hours 150 pts
  Shift 200 pts
  Multiple Shifts 250 pts
  Days 400 pts



• Repair Costs - What is the typical (average) cost to repair a failure on this equipment
  None 0 pts
  10,000 300 pts



• Spare Parts Availability
  In line Spares 0 pts
  Spares In Stock 50 pts
  Spares lead time 3 days or less 150 pts
  Spares lead time > 3 days 300 pts



• Affected Down Time Area - How much of the plant may be affected by failure
  None 0 pts
  Component Only 50 pts
  Line 150 pts
  Department 250 pts
  Plant 500 pts

Similar criteria for all of the functional areas would also need to be developed. Using this type of set up the equipment with the highest point ranking is the most critical.

It is important to note that the criteria and the weighting will be different from plant to plant and industry to industry due to business issues. This is why it is important that the weighting and criteria be developed with representation and agreement from all areas of the plant. The key to an effective criticality ranking is to correctly configure the Criticality Ranking Tool (CRT) to incorporate all perspectives of the equipment. Set-up includes determining the ranking criteria for each area and also properly weighting the criteria to accurately reflect the criteria's relative importance to the organization. If the criteria are measurable and the whole organization agrees with them then a smaller team of knowledgeable personnel can actually rank each piece of equipment.

A spreadsheet or database can be set up to manage the information or you can purchase software for this purpose.

The completed ranking can then be used to determine which equipment gets attention first, how the maintenance strategy gets developed and what type of maintenance is performed. The overall ranking can even be loaded into the CMMS and be used to help prioritize work orders.

Maintenance Management 201: Part 3

Maintenance Management 201: Part 3

• A good Predictive Maintenance program will allow you to sleep at night.
  The Maintenance Manager position can either be very frustrating or very rewarding. Frustrating in that breakdowns can occur at any time, and (in strict compliance with Murphy’s Law) invariably at night or on weekends when the equipment is needed most and when your family is depending on you to be with them and not at the plant. Rewarding in that there is a proven answer to those breakdowns if you have the foresight to implement a sound Predictive Maintenance program.
  
  The key to maximizing your free time is to know the condition of your equipment. PdM technologies enable you to identify potential defects within equipment, usually while the equipment is still in operation. Often, some of these problems may be caught early enough that the condition can be corrected before the equipment suffers damage. With the right training, feedback, and experience, PdM technicians will also be able to give you a prognosis of the equipment’s remaining life which will allow you to take care of the problem on your terms and your schedule instead of at Mr. Murphy’s whim.
  
  Not every potential failure is detectable, but the vast majority are with the right technologies employed – and new technologies are being developed every day. PdM is not “magic”; it’s hard science. The warning signals are real if we are perceptive enough to listen. Applying the right technology to the right equipment and potential failure mode will give you the ability to determine equipment health and increase your confidence that you can make plans with your family that won’t be interrupted.



• Costs cannot be permanently reduced without making work go away.
  We live in a global economy. Most North American industries compete with companies in countries that have significant business advantages, such as lower taxes, lower labor costs, or government subsidies. There is tremendous pressure to cut costs to keep market share, and maintenance costs are typically a big target. In fact, it’s really easy to cut maintenance spending – just lay off maintenance crafts people and decide not to do routine maintenance. You’ll be a hero – for a little while. Sooner or later, neglect will come back to haunt you.
  
  The only true way to permanently reduce maintenance costs is to permanently eliminate work. There are several ways to do this. Make sure the basics of cleaning, lubrication, and contamination control are in place. Implement a precision maintenance program to make equipment last longer (point 5). Use PdM to reduce the scope of repairs by correcting incipient problems before failure (point 9). Avoid unnecessary “open and inspect” intrusive maintenance that usually causes problems due to contamination and reassembly errors. Ensure that the craftspeople have sufficient skills and procedures (point 4) to do the job right the first time. Carefully assess all work requests from the field to determine if it truly adds value and should be done – otherwise, reject it.
  
  Deferring maintenance spending is a short-term fix that has long-term implications. If you have not changed the “system” (see point 6) by any of the above techniques, expect the costs to rise six to twelve months in the future – and they will keep rising. Sustainable maintenance cost reduction is a result of doing the right things to make the work go away, not because of some misguided attempt to stop spending money.

Maintenance Management 201: Part 2

Maintenance Management 201: Part 2

• Precision, precision, precision!
  Reliability is inherently a function of design. All we can do from a Maintenance perspective is preserve that inherent reliability. All too often, significant potential equipment life is lost because crafts people did not pay the appropriate attention to detail in repair or installation. For example, studies conducted by Barringer and Associates2 have found that if we have as much as 1/8” of piping misalignment in a standard ANSI end-suction centrifugal pump, we will lose as much as 45% of it’s inherent life!
  
  To be an effective Maintenance Manager, you should insist that all work is done to the appropriate level of precision. Tools required to achieve this precision, such as dial indicators, calipers, torque wrenches, laser alignment devices, and the like should be available to all crafts persons. The tools should be included in the calibration program and each crafts person should be effectively trained in their use. Validation of precision work should be routinely performed through a post-maintenance testing program such as taking baseline vibration readings or operational performance tests. Regular audits of repair work should be conducted both to verify that the work is done correctly as well to illustrate the importance that you place on precision.
  
  Another factor that bears mentioning along this line is to insist that crafts persons must be provided with sufficient time to achieve the level of precision required. There will always be significant pressure to complete a field repair quickly, but rushing through a repair is detrimental to precision. Considering the example above, if a standard pump has a Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of 7 years, and investment of 8 hours to correct a piping strain problem can potentially result in an added life of over 3 years. Remember the old adage. “There’s never enough time to do it right, but plenty of time to do it over”! Don’t rob your crafts people of their desire for quality workmanship.



• The system wins every time.
  The late Dr. W. Edwards Deming made the point that everyone works within a system. Most people want to do a good job. Often, they cannot do so due to constraints of the system. In point 5 above, if the “system” does not allow them time to use precision methods, we will not get a precise result. If our materials management “system” does not ensure we will have the materials required to do the work, we will experience delays. If our work management “system” does not include documenting work details after the job is done, we won’t have accurate equipment history. Good people performing in a poor system will produce poor results; average people performing in a good system will produce good results.
  
  No organization can afford to be stagnant. There is always room for improvement, and it is a key responsibility of a leader to continuously drive improvements. Remember the saying, “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.” If we want to make improvements, we’ll have to change the system – but these changes usually cost money.
  
  Since we operate within a larger financial “system”, we need to be proactive in obtaining funding for necessary improvements. One of the best ways to do this is to have a three to five year master plan that is updated on an annual basis. This will allow us to get our improvement ideas into the budget cycle, which will greatly increase the chance of funding. It will also increase senior management’s confidence in your ability to manage the department in a proactive fashion.



• Always question policies that don’t seem to make sense
  Although this may seem like an invitation to make a “career limiting move”, it is not – it is really an extension of point 6. Many “systems” that we work within do not exist by design; they have evolved over the years. The organization may have put a policy in place that was needed to address a problem many years ago, but the problem no longer exists. We sometimes find ourselves bound by those policies that needlessly stifle organizational growth.
  
  A common example of this point is the decision to select some craftspeople for training in predictive maintenance technologies. A policy may be in place that such positions have to be awarded on the basis of seniority only, and when the position is bid, a craftsman who is only a year or two from retirement has bid on it and has the greatest seniority. Does it make sense to award the job to that person and provide a year’s worth of training, only to have him/her retire just when he/she becomes competent?
  
  The world around us is constantly changing, and sometimes our rules and policies need to change in order to keep pace. If we do not recognize this and make the necessary changes, it is tantamount to being “stupid on purpose”. We need to take an objective look at our rules, policies and practices, and modify those that don’t make sense. Although this may be difficult to do in some organizational environments, you should still raise the issue. After all if you don’t question an outdated policy, then who will?



• Advanced tools will not provide full benefit unless the foundational processes are sound.
  Many organizations devote significant resources to implement the latest “three-letter acronym” tools before they are ready, and are surprised when they do not achieve the planned results. Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) cannot yield anticipated cost savings because the organization cannot implement the new tasks. Predictive maintenance (PdM) finds equipment problems in the early stage of degradation, but the workforce is consumed with “fix it now” emergent work and cannot make repairs before failure occurs. Autonomous maintenance, one of the pillars of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), falls flat because the maintenance workforce is overloaded and cannot respond to the problems that operators detect. A “Just in Time” (JIT) parts ordering process cannot function until a there is low demand for emergency parts and a good inventory control system is in place.
  
  Much like building a house, the foundation must be completed before the walls go up or the building will not stand. Foundational elements for Maintenance include a complete set of “master data” and sound processes to control the work that gets done. Master data includes a complete list of all plant equipment that is ranked according to criticality and a thorough spare parts catalog of both stocked and non-stock spare parts. Work control processes include a well-conceived Work Order system (including effective Planning and Scheduling), a sound process for conducting basic maintenance (including a good lubrication program), and a fully functional inventory control system. These foundational elements will allow you to get control of both the work that has to be done and the condition of the equipment, enabling the advanced concepts to achieve their potential.

Maintenance Management 201: Part 1

Maintenance Management 201: Part 1

Introduction:

This is a continuation of a discussion of fundamental “lessons” that new Maintenance Managers need to know in order to effectively manage an industrial maintenance operation in a proactive fashion. The first set was discussed in “Maintenance Management 101”, presented as an iPresentation on ReliabilityWeb.com and published in “Uptime” magazine in October, 2007. As with Maintenance Management 101, some readers may find this information to be elementary – but experience shows that few organizations have fully implemented the concepts.

• You have the right to manage.
  Managers in many organizations feel “handcuffed” by bargaining unit agreements, past practices, traditions, and Human Resources policies in their attempts to manage personnel. They feel powerless to address poor performance on the part of employees for fear that any decision they make will be overturned. The lament “They won’t let me” is often heard.
  
  This does not have to be the case. No union contract or HR rule will prevent you from setting clear expectations for all personnel within your department and following up to make sure those expectations are delivered. When people fall below expectations, the reason should be identified. (If the reason for failure to comply is due to the “system”, please refer to point 6.) If the reason is within the employee’s control, determine if it is a skill problem or a performance problem. If a skill problem, it is your job to provide the necessary training. If a performance problem, it should be documented with a clear explanation of the consequences of failure to comply in the future.
  
  Another point is that authority is given on the basis of your position, but respect of the workforce, peers, and management must be earned. It is earned through fair and consistent treatment of individuals on your team. If employees lack the resources to meet expectations, it is up to you to provide them. If employees do not have the skills to do the job, it is up to you to provide training or reassign them to a position where they can be successful (more on this in point 2). You will lose respect if you fail to take action to address poor performance.




• The right people will help you be successful.
  Management of people is clearly a different job than that of an individual contributor. Your performance is no longer solely due to your efforts; it is dependent on the performance of your subordinates. It follows, then, that your success depends on having capable individuals in every role on your team.
  
  In the book Good to Great, Jim Collins describes one of the key attributes of great companies as having “the right people on the bus”. This attribute applies to smaller organizations as well. Some people are simply not capable of performing some tasks well because they do not have the innate talent to do so. As a manager, you will be tempted to devote a lot of time attempting to “correct” performance that is ultimately not correctable. When you do this, you are not helping the remainder of your team – you should be devoting your efforts to helping your good people produce at peak capacity.
  
  Clearly, keeping someone in a position where they are a poor fit benefits no one. If you have an individual that continually produces substandard results, the other team members will spend their time compensating for the results of the poor performer. They will become frustrated and their performance will ultimately slip as well. Your organization will not produce superior results if you are continually compensating for someone who is not pulling their weight. The kindest thing to do in this case is to find a position – within the company or outside of it – where that substandard performer can excel. They will experience greater job satisfaction and your team will be more productive.



• Field supervision of the craft workforce is critical.
  Maintenance work is different from most other jobs in that it constantly varies - craftspeople are doing a different task every day. One day they are rebuilding a pump, the next they are replacing piping, and aligning a compressor after that. It’s rare to find a craftsperson that performs the same job day in and day out. Even with a good planning process, they still may encounter obstacles in the field that may cause delays, mistakes, or wasted effort. Crafts need the support of supervisors to make sure they have what they need to do quality work and to make sure any barriers to good performance are eliminated.
  
  The most important job of supervision is to develop their team of human resources. They should identify skill development needs and create opportunities for their subordinates to practice new skills. First line supervision is also the point at which management decisions are turned into action. Supervisors need to enforce policies and procedures as well as ensure that standard work processes are followed.
  
  Most supervisors are saddled with extraneous duties that keep them tied to their desks or attending meetings. If they are not allowed to spend adequate time in the field, they will not be able to provide the level of support needed to maximize the quality and quantity of work or to nurture the development in their people. The Maintenance Manager is responsible to make sure that the first line supervisors have at least 50% to 60% of their day devoted to field supervision of the craft resources.



• You have to have procedures for performing maintenance.
  When one considers the wide variety of equipment encountered in the average industrial facility and the variety of tasks performed on that equipment, it is surprising to realize that, in most organizations, few procedures exist for maintenance and repair. Most organizations depend on “skill of the craft”, memory, or (even worse) an “educated guess” to determine the technical details required, such as clearances, torque values, tolerances, belt tensions, and the like.
  
  Studies have shown that a high percentage of “infant mortality” failures occur in the absence of detailed written procedures1. Equipment does not perform to standard or experiences a failure soon after startup. These can only be due to mistakes and errors made during maintenance or repair. These errors are not the craftsperson’s fault; failing to provide the necessary resources to enable quality work to be done is the fault of management. Even the most talented craftsperson does not have an infallible memory!
  
  Ideally, maintenance procedures should be developed by the Planning function. In creating these procedures, it is natural to want to avoid inserting too much detail to avoid “insulting” the craftsperson’s intelligence. Rest assured that it is not an insult to make technical specification details available, nor is it an insult to spell out the proper steps to complete the job in the most expeditious fashion. In fact, the vast majority of crafts people would appreciate having the information available to do the job right the first time!

Maintenance Management 101: Part 4

Maintenance Management 101: Part 4

• The more reactive you are, the more you have to depend on a good storeroom.
  The word “reaction” means “a response, as to a stimulus or influence.” Reactive maintenance organizations frequently have to “respond” to the “stimulus” of an equipment breakdown. When this happens, they rarely know what damage they are going to find – or what parts will be needed to return the equipment to service. Therefore, the storeroom must have a wide selection of parts to meet any conceivable circumstance.
  
  On the other hand, organizations that follow a proactive maintenance philosophy place a high degree of emphasis on knowing the condition of their equipment. The definition of proactive is “controlling a situation by causing something to happen rather than waiting to respond after it happens.” Proactive organizations “control” a potential breakdown situation by “causing” an equipment inspection to happen, with the purpose of understanding the equipment’s condition. When the scope of the corrective action is small and predictable, this enables them to detect a deteriorating condition before failure occurs. Usually, there is sufficient advance warning that parts can be ordered from the vendors on a “just-in-time” basis and be on site well in advance of the potential failure. There is little need to stock the parts “just in case”.
  
  Think about it – if you were guaranteed that you would never have another unanticipated breakdown, would you need to have a storeroom at all? Obviously, this is an ideal and unrealistic scenario because there are no guarantees. However, with a proactive philosophy, fewer parts need to be stocked, and lower inventories are needed for those that should be stocked due to long lead times. This can have a significant financial benefit because inventory carrying costs are influenced, to a large degree, by inventory value. If you’re proactive, you can reduce inventory without assuming additional risk.



• The second law of thermodynamics applies to Maintenance.
  The second law of thermodynamics deals with entropy, or the amount of “disorder” in a system (where equilibrium is a state of maximum disorder). Entropy can be reduced in a system by external action. An example of this concept is the common refrigerator. As long as we keep putting energy into the system (in the form of electricity), we can minimize entropy inside and keep it from reaching equilibrium with the surrounding room. Said another way, it takes a constant infusion of energy to minimize disorder.
  
  The same thing is true of Maintenance. The “equilibrium” state of the Maintenance function is one in which disorder reigns – a reactive state. And, like the second law of thermodynamics, it takes a constant infusion of energy – managerial energy – to minimize this disorder. This energy requirement takes on several forms, from a properly functioning work order system, to sound preventive and predictive maintenance programs, to efficient work execution through planning and scheduling, to root cause analysis of those failures that do occur, and so on.
  
  A truly proactive culture requires that the organization do a lot of things right; this is why so few organizations have truly achieved it. And once it is achieved, the organization cannot relax or entropy will raise its ugly head. Proactive maintenance needs the constant infusion of energy, because no matter how good you are, there is always room to improve!

Maintenance Management 101: Part 3

Maintenance Management 101: Part 3

• Scheduling will enhance your credibility with Operations.
  Often, Operations personnel are reluctant to release equipment to Maintenance because they have been “burned” by broken promises in the past. That’s understandable; in a reactive environment, it’s difficult to make accurate estimates for repair duration because you usually don’t know what you’re going to find until you get into the equipment. Nor do you know what parts are going to be needed or whether you have them in stock.
  
  Creating a schedule for all the work you intend to do next week literally forces you to have forethought about the jobs you intend to do, including how long they will take. Even if you’re not formally planning, these estimates will likely average out to +/-30% accuracy when compared to actual performance. Planning, of course, will improve this accuracy and cut the variability in half.
  
  When you sit down with Operations to create the schedule, two things will likely happen: they will realize that you’re attempting to schedule your necessary work at a time most convenient to them, and they will gain an appreciation for all of the work you have to do in the week. They will no longer make the assumption that your craft technicians are sitting back in the shop, waiting for something to break. The schedule becomes a “contract” between the two parties – Maintenance agrees to have the resources (labor and materials) available to perform the work, and Operations agrees to have the equipment available at the appointed time.




• Reliability engineers are free.
  Well, not exactly “free” – but certainly at zero net cost to your organization. The primary role of a Reliability Engineer is to drive out sources of repetitive failure, through effective design of the maintenance strategy and through root cause analysis when failures do occur. When one considers the financial impact of critical equipment failures on labor, materials, and production loss, it is easy to see that this position can pay for itself. In fact, it may be the only position in the organization that can make that claim. Many organizations have set a performance objective on this position to return the equivalent of twice their annual salary in savings due to higher reliability.
  
  In order to be successful, however, the Reliability Engineer must be able to focus on his core responsibilities. Many organizations divert the effort by assigning ancillary duties to this individual, such as managing capital project installations. Reliability Engineering is a completely different discipline than Project Engineering and requires a different set of skills. Project engineering requires strong project management skills and the capability to do system designs. Reliability engineering requires strong data analysis skills and the capability to use tools such as Root Cause Analysis, Reliability Centered Maintenance, Weibull Analysis, and the like.
  
  Unfortunately, there are very few four-year institutions that offer undergraduate degrees with a Reliability focus. Most successful Reliability Engineers entered industry in another field and gravitated toward the discipline because of supplemental training. Although sometimes difficult to find on the outside, Reliability Engineers can be created, and can be one of the most valuable positions in your organization.



• You can’t manage effectively without data.
  “Should I authorize overtime next week?” “Should I extend the overhaul frequency on the XYZ machine?” “Is my PM program working the way it should?” “Where am I using the most labor and material resources?” These are all typical questions that face Maintenance Managers every day. Poor managers answer them with “gut feel”; good managers answer them with data. Where does this data come from? Obviously, much of it is provided by a properly functioning work order system (see number 2 above). Other sources are the production and quality control systems.
  
  Data also provides an opportunity to create a set of performance indicators that tell you how you’re doing against your goals and where your improvement opportunities lie. Performance indicators will drive behavior; the right set of indicators will drive the right behaviors. As such, they should be linked to business objectives to avoid the danger of “sub-optimizing” the maintenance function at the expense of the overall facility.
  
  It is always easier to sell an improvement idea to senior management if the justification uses objective data. Very few managers in senior positions have a deep understanding of the maintenance function; the merits of an idea may not be as obvious to them as it is to the folks on the shop floor. Ideas presented along with factual data, such as “upgrading this machine will result in the reduction of X lost tons at a value of Y dollars”, will stand a much better chance of success.

Maintenance Management 101: Part 2

Maintenance Management 101: Part 2

• Preventive and predictive maintenance is the most important work you can do.
  There is a big difference between “urgent” and “important”. PM/PdM activities are not urgent, but they are important. If you defer these tasks because some urgent activity is allowed to take precedence, the consequence will be a failure at some point in the future. The future failure will very likely cause more PM/PdM to be deferred, resulting in another failure, etc., etc. It’s a vicious cycle that has no end!
  
  Keeping up with scheduled proactive activities is the only way to break the cycle. You must make PM/PdM work a high priority and make sure the tasks get done according to the schedule. A good way to do this is to populate the weekly work schedule with some portion of low priority work on equipment that does not require a process outage to execute. This is the work you can defer if an emergency occurs. If your schedule contains only high priority work, you will be forced to make a decision to defer something of equal importance. And, if you defer PM/PdM work, your organization will quickly come to the conclusion that you’re not serious about the proactive maintenance environment.
  
  Another way to show the importance of PM/PdM is to audit the program periodically. Since the routine can get somewhat boring, there is a tendency for crafts people to be “less than diligent” in their execution. However, if the manager spot-checks after a PM has been done and provides prompt feedback if something is amiss, the expectations become very clear. Also, an equipment failure is a great time to audit the PM/PdM activity. One of the first questions that should be asked after an equipment failure is “Why didn’t our PM/PdM program prevent this?”



• Proper planning of maintenance work will provide you with free labor.
  Statistical work sampling studies show that the BEST productivity (hands-on-tools-time) you can expect without planning is around 35%. Most reactive organizations are lower than that. The remaining 65% of the craftsperson’s day is spent trying to find parts, looking for technical information, talking to Operations to see what’s wrong with the equipment, and other nonproductive activities. If you have 20 people in your crew, they are doing the equivalent work of 7 people at 100% productivity. In essence, you’re paying for 13 people who aren’t adding value to your organization.
  
  Some productivity loss is unavoidable; planning the work in advance will eliminate the avoidable delays. With good planning, you can expect a workforce productivity of 55% or better. That’s a 57% improvement in the amount of work your crew can do in a day. Do the math; your 20-person workforce can now do the work of 11 people at 100% productivity. You just added the equivalent of four people to your workforce - at no additional cost! In addition, your workforce is less frustrated because they have what they need to do a quality job.
  
  Planning also provides other benefits. Since the planning function is so integrated into the work management process, it provides the “glue” that holds it together and ensures that it functions properly. Planners also provide a “quality assurance” function to make sure that the data in your system is accurate and meaningful. Considering these benefits, a good planner can be one of the most valuable members of your organization!



• You have to build a partnership with Operations.
  One of the easiest traps to fall into is to create an adversarial relationship with the Operations organization. After all, if they wouldn’t break it, you wouldn’t have to fix it, right? Bet if you asked them, they’d say that if you’d fix it correctly, it wouldn’t break. You spend a lot of time and effort trying to decide who gets the “blame” for an equipment failure, and it usually winds up in your lap. This is a counterproductive situation and one that is guaranteed to cause your maintenance process to be reactive.
  
  Face it; your functions are interdependent. The plant cannot exist without Operations, nor can it exist without Maintenance. Neither function can be successful without the other. A proactive Maintenance function is dependent on operators being the “first line of defense” and taking responsibility for equipment care. It is also dependent on getting necessary downtime for correcting problems discovered on predictive inspections. Your weekly work schedule is worthless if Operations is not involved in its creation because they have to commit to the equipment being available at the appointed time.
  
  A great way to build a partnership is to sit down with your Operations counterpart and have a frank discussion about what each needs from the other in order to be successful. Draft a “partnership agreement” that spells out, in writing, your responsibilities to each other. Commit to it, sign it, and review it periodically to make sure you are both complying with it.

Maintenance Management 101: Part 1

Maintenance Management 101: Part 1

Introduction:

You’ve just been named Maintenance Manager of a large manufacturing plant. You have the responsibility of maintaining the plant equipment at a high level of reliability within a severely constrained budget. How in the world do you get your arms around this beast we call Maintenance and get it under control?

The good news is that there is a wealth of information in books, magazine articles, internet articles, and conference proceedings concerning the subject of Maintenance Management. It’s also the bad news, because there is so much out there that it’s overwhelming. It really doesn’t tell you where to start. This article will explore ten of the most basic concepts that every maintenance manager must know to put into practice. These will provide a springboard to more advanced concepts that will provide increasing value to your organization.

• Failures don’t have to happen.
  This is an attitude; a philosophy; a way of thinking. Reactive organizations expect failures to occur and position their resources to repair the failures as quickly as possible. This typically means lots of spare parts in stores and maintenance coverage around the clock. Although it sounds logical on the surface, it is the most expensive management philosophy you can have.
  
  Proactive organizations realize that the fastest repairman in the world is not as fast as the craftsman that did not allow the failure to happen in the first place. They do not expect failures to occur; if one does, they seek to understand why it happened. --Something had to cause it, whether a design problem, a faulty part, an error by an operator, or a problem with the maintenance strategy. The important point is that you should not accept an equipment failure without asking that most powerful word, “WHY”.
  
  Failures represent the most expensive information you can get, and therefore the most valuable. Not only do you incur the cost of the repair, but also the cost of downtime. Perform “post-mortems” on failed components and perform root cause analysis to learn the causes of failures so that this money is not spent in vain.
  
  
  
  
• The work order system is your best friend.
  Your work order system, and the entire work management process, is your most valuable management tool. It allows you to manage the daily work load, manage your resources, and create asset history as well as providing the information that you need to identify opportunities for improvement. However, it’s not much good to you if you don’t have the discipline to follow it. If it’s only partially used, you won’t be able to trust the data collected.
  
  Your process should be mapped in a process flow diagram. This will allow you to show everyone how it’s supposed to work, which is the key to ensuring it’s followed with the right level of discipline. No maintenance work should be allowed to be done without a work order to cover the labor and material costs. By the same token, no inventoried storeroom materials or outside purchased items should be purchased without a work order to capture the costs.
  
  Just as the Production Manager needs a production management system to track production, and the Finance Manager needs an accounting system to track money, the Maintenance Manager needs a work order system to track maintenance. And, like those other critical systems, it should be audited periodically as well. This serves two purposes – it illustrates the value you put on it (which makes it more likely to be followed), and identifies any potential flaws that will require a modification to it’s design.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of Maintenance Management 101!

The Management of Change

The Management of Change

Organizations are recognizing that standardized and complete asset data is critical to having trustworthy information on which to act. Obtaining this data is a costly endeavor, and as soon as the data is collected, there is a possibility that some will become obsolete as routine equipment replacements occur. The importance of managing change as a proactive process vs. scrambling to react to the changes can easily mirror those reactive maintenance tendencies so many manufactures try to avoid. This is why Management of Change (MOC) is so vital to maintaining foundational data as equipment goes out and new comes in. This simple process can be compared to updating P&IDs. Without standardized foundational data your entire program will be compromised, so don’t forget the foundational data in your MOC program.

Establishing When to Perform a Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA)

Many organizations develop and train personnel in the performance of Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA). This generally represents a significant investment in time and training costs. However, they sometimes find themselves frustrated by the lack of results from this investment. One of the key factors contributing to this lack of results is the failure to properly establish guidelines for when to execute an RCFA, and this results in the over use or under use of this tool.

The following factors should be considered to establish organizational guidelines for the execution of an RCFA:

• A balance must be achieved between the resources available and the number of events performed. Typically, a person should only lead or participate in three to four a year.


• The performance of an RCFA represents a significant investment in the use of company resources. A cost threshold, based on the failure’s impact to the business, should be established. Typically, this may be in the $10K to $20K range. Also, RCFAs are typically used to investigate and resolve all recordable or reportable safety and environmental incidents.

Once established, the organizational guidelines for the execution of an RCFA should be communicated throughout the organization.

What Information Should I Capture When Completing a Work Order?

Determining what information to capture when completing a work order is a question that all maintenance organizations struggle with. This question can be especially daunting to organizations transitioning from a paper based work order management system to a CMMS. In order to effectively answer this question one must start with the end in mind. In other words, what information will be useful to track over time? Below are some key pieces of data that should be captured when completing a work order and the value of tracking that data.

Completion Date & Time: This information allows the user to track when specific work was done. It allows for the development of historical trending which can be used setup preventive or predictive maintenance plans and calculate meantime between repairs or failures. This information should be captured for all resources working on the work order.

Labor Resources: This should include all resources that worked on the work order. This will make it possible to determine the true labor cost of the work order and the impact on resource for future planning.

Completion Comments: Completion comments should state in sufficient detail the work that was performed to complete the work order. Just putting “Complete” should be considered insufficient. The completion comments may capture discrepancies in the work suggested by the work order versus the work actually performed. It may indicate follow up work that needs to be done requiring the creation of additional work orders.

Materials Used: This information determines the true materials cost of the work order. It allows improved materials planning future work. It also provides the ability to trend material usage for specific assets over time.

Special Tools: Special tools such as man lifts, power tools, and specialty tools should be captured when completing the work order. This will allow for improved work scheduling by ensuring that work is scheduled when the necessary tools are available. By assigning cost related to the use of these tools, a better understanding of their impact on the overall work order costs can be determined.

Capturing the information above when completing a work order will allow the maintenance organization to get a better understanding of costs associated with specific work orders and specific assets. It can help an organization determine the appropriate staffing levels and skills needed to maintain the equipment and insight into what predictive and preventive maintenance programs should be put in place to improve equipment reliability. Capturing, trending, and reviewing these data elements will help a maintenance organization move from a reactive culture to a proactive culture.

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Maintenance Organizations - HABIT 7

Habit 7 – Sharpen the Saw

Habit 7 is the law of continuous improvement. It’s about personal development and the development of personnel. We read articles like this one and attend seminars and conferences because we want to develop our skills, and that’s very admirable. Part of our employee strategy mentioned in Habit 2 may revolve around training or Sharpening the Saw. Effective organizations recognize that employees can’t be held responsible to do something in a certain way if they haven't been properly trained. They commonly use workflows as the preferred method of mapping out organizational activities that can then be easily followed and adhered to. They also recognize that precision maintenance skills and predictive maintenance skills are not always skills craftspeople bring to the company with them.

When companies proactively train personnel, they must first establish the end goal. For example, an end goal might be for employees to perform the tasks as outlined in the job plans. Some necessary first steps would be to find out what skills are needed to do that and what skills exist. Doing so allows for targeted training, which is less expensive than blanket training and more palatable to the student—another win/win. Learning additional skills often leads to job enhancement, which usually leads to job enrichment for the employee.

Conclusion

This is an extremely high overview of the 7 Habits and how they apply to successful maintenance organizations. Dr. Covey is listed as one of Time Magazine’s 25 Most Influential People for good reason. Practicing the 7 Habits has increased the productivity and quality of life of countless people. Read and re-read these 7 Habits looking for more ways in which they can apply in your life and in your organization. Research the topic more by reading or listening to the original works by Dr. Steven Covey or by contacting MRG.