Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

The SAMI Production Triangle

Strategic Asset Management Inc.


25 New Britain Avenue
Unionville, CT 06085
(800) 706-0702
info@samicorp.com
www.samicorp.com

Strategic Asset Management Inc. We Deliver Change!


SAMI’s Production Maturity Matrix
Class
Stage Low Performing Competent High Performing
• Production Schedule Changes Daily • Production schedule planned and executed • Minimum WIP inventory maintained
• Little coordination between shifts • Raw materials available and meet spec • Scheduling is exact for mtls, staff, time
Stage 1 • Frequent unplanned production interruptions • Eqpmnt is made available for planned maint. • Production meets or exceeds Q1 spec
Planned • Raw materials have quality problems • Operators capable normal production needs • Equipment is prepared daily by operator
• Offspec product a way of life • Downtime and slowdown reasons logged • Preventive maintenance is a religion
Production • No time for preventive maintenance • Eqpmnt inspected, defect notifications done • High level of cooperation among functions
• Frequent order expediting • Eqpmnt, permits is prepared for maintenance • Operators show equipment ownership
• Production targets seldom met • Production targets usually met • Production targets routinely exceeded
• Operating spec’s undocumented or ignored • Unplanned events evaluated, corrected • Asset healthcare program for all equipment
• Operators not trained on equipment/process
Stage 2 • Production bottlenecks frequent
• Operators educated in process & equipment • Predictive techniques minimize downtime
• Production bottlenecks identified and worked • Failure analysis done for 80% of failures
Proactive • Little or improperly used automation • Operating specs identified, surveilled • Results of RCFA’s implemented routinely
Production • Operators have little process visibility • DCS upgraded to perform additional functions • Condition monitoring based on cost & risk
• DCS antiquated, unstable, circumvented • Quality built into process, not inspection • Prevention is a cultural imperative
• Equipment not designed/maintained to • Raw material acquisition quality specified • Trades work on designing out failure
perform required function

• Training unconnected to real work practice • Supervisors have clear roles & accountability • Work teams flexible, self-directed
• “Team” implementation causes confusion • Operators inspect, lube, prep equipment • Supervisors coach & advise
Stage 3 • Supervisors lack authority, accountability • Task teams form, identify solutions, disband • Continuous improvem’t embraced, effective
Organizational • Unclear roles and responsibilities • Most work is directly by a priority system • Clear priorities established for work
Excellence • Skills flexibility in contract, not implemented • Natural work teams effective at routine maint. • Reward/Recognition support best practices
• Operators don’t inspect or maintain equipm’t • Service contract exists between maint.& ops. • Skills predominate over functions
• No individual performance targets/goals • Craft multi-skilling and flexibility implemented • All staff systems competent

• RCM implementation creates confusion, • Reliability models run for critical systems • Concurrent engineering assures RAMBO
results not implemented Component MTBF specifications defined • Reliability tied to financial results
Stage 4 • Jobs changed on paper, not in reality • Equipment standards implemented • Lifecycle costs are the basis for decisions
Engineered • Stages 1&2 are ignored to “eliminate work” • Critical equipment assessed via RCM • Vendor contracts pay for function reliability
Reliability • Emphasis on analysis, not implementation • Projects get input from maintenance, ops • Production targets set by reliability models
• Vendor reduction brings lower service levels • Equipment types, models rationalized • Equipment failures are a rare occurrence
• Purchasing buys by lifecycle cost, not price

• Management unclear re: goals & methods • Clear organizational alignment • Each employee knows & is rewarded for role
• Equipment condition not factored into goals • Goals cascaded from plant level to individual • All decisions based on facts and models
Stage 5 • Equipment run parameters changed daily to • Production goals based on plant capability • 80% of work is preventive or project, & is
Asset respond to market pressures • Most work identified and planned prior year identified prior to the start of the year
• Too many priorities prevent focus • Hourly help set unit goals & work improvem’ts • Production is 98% predictable
Management • Poor understanding of plant potential/ • Activity-Based Management implemented • Lowest cost producer
liabilities • Prod’n reliability is part of product marketing • Plant becomes corporate expansion site

 2003 Strategic Asset Management Inc. - Proprietary and Confidential

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen