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.