Maintenance and Reliability

Maintenance and Reliability

Wisdom from the Field

Report

July 2008

Reliabilityweb.com
http://www.reliabilityweb.com

Reliabilityweb.com PO Box 60075 Fort Myers FL 33906 USA

Executive Summary

As 2007 drew to a close we put a call out for Reliabilityweb.com members to share
some of what they had learned over the past year. We wanted gems of wisdom that
would allow all of us to benefit from the trials and tribulations of the brave few who
decided to contribute.

Although most organizations are different, we feel that Maintenance professionals have
more elements that connect them than separate them. This was one of the driving
factors that led to the creation of the Association for Maintenance Professionals
(http://www.maintenance.org) with a goal no less than to connect every single
maintenance and reliability professional in the world.

All of the work we do at Reliabilityweb.com, Uptime® Magazine and Maintenance
Conferences like the International Maintenance Conference, the Predictive
Maintenance Technology Conference, the Reliability Centered Maintenance Managers’
Forum and the Enterprise Asset Management Summit are all designed to make and
reinforce connections for maintenance and reliability professionals.

We are fortunate to have a loyal group of supporters who provide us with the support
and inspiration that drives our continued good work.

We are especially proud of the good work that resulted in this Wisdom report.

The “wisdom” that we received and that makes up this document is not grammatically
perfect, nor is every word used in its correct context. If you are in search of perfection,
you are in the wrong place. If you are in search of honest sharing of knowledge and
experience you are in for a real treat. True wisdom awaits you in the coming pages.

I would also like to thank a certain editor (who wished to remain nameless) who helped
me put this work together. He has worked his entire career in the same spirit of
contribution that we carry on today. If our body of work can rise the level of the bar he
has set in his work – we will know that our work has meaning.

Please enjoy and find value this work.

Terrence O’Hanlon, CMRP
Publisher
Reliabilityweb.com and Uptime® Magazine
tohanlon@reliabilityweb.com

Table of Contents

Lessons Learned……………………………………………..….………………………………………………… i
TPM motivation………………………………….…………………………………………………… i
Program du jour………………………………….…………………………………………………… i
Undeniable truth?........................................................................................ i
EAM scheduling confusion…………………….…………………………………………………. ii
All information is important…………………………………………………………………….. iii
Penny wise, pound foolish……………………………………………………………………….. iii
Understanding the job……………………………………………………………………………… iv
Schedule reliably……………………………………………………………………………………… iv
CICO………………………………………………………………………………………………………… iv
How we did it……………………………………………………………………………………………………. v
Watchwords……………………………………………………………………………………………. v
Never judge a J‐box by its cover………………………………………………………………. v
In name only……………………………………………………………………………………………. vi
Must have vibration analysis……………………………………………………………………. vi
Don’t forget to check the checklist…………………………………………………………… vi
Career Stories……………………………………………………………………………………………………. viii
Getting things done…………………………………………………………………………………. viii
Become a financial wizard……………………………………………………………………….. viii
Political outsider………………………………………………………………………………………. ix
Training‐go‐round……………………………………………………………………………………. x
Human Reliability and Culture…………………………………………………………………………… xi
Like‐minded professionals……………………………………………………………………….. xi
Add time for safety………………………………………………………………………………….. xi
Long live the king…………………………………………………………………………………….. xi
Grease the path……………………………………………………………………………………….. xii
Mapping human errors……………………………………………………………………………. xii
Head trumps hand…………………………………………………………………………………… xiii
PdM optimization challenge…………………………………………………………………….. xiii
Good behavior…………………………………………………………………………………………. xiv
Other Helpful Lessons……………………………………………………………………………………….. xv
10 steps to improved availability……………………………………………………………… xv
Write it down………………………………………………………………………………………….. xv
Holistic Asset Management…………………………………………………………………….. xvi
No time for Uptime…………………………………………………………………………………. xvi
Keep safe when lubricating……………………………………………………………………… xvi
Floor level reliability………………………………………………………………………………… xvii
Excuses, excuses………………………………………………………………………………………. xvii
I never win anything………………………………………………………………………………… xviii
Other Resources………………………………………………………………………………………………… xix
Reliabilityweb.com Maintenance and Reliability Wisdom from the Field Report 2008
Lessons Learned
What I Learned from Experience about Reliability and Maintenance

TPM motivation
Learned

When we introduced Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), we selected the most critical
machines and began with a one‐week workshop on each one. We included a cleaning activity
where the team (facilitator, operators, maintainers, supervisor, etc.) clean every spot of a
machine and identify defects. In the middle of this activity, maintenance and the manufacturing
managers join the team and participate in the cleaning. It’s amazing how seeing managers in
overalls motivates the entire team. This was one of the most important factors to the success of
TPM in our company.

Luis, Caterpillar Mexico, Santa Catarina, N.L., Mexico

Program du jour
What you learned

I've learned what a tremendous challenge it is to get a Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM)
program off and running. I have now been through three maintenance managers since my start
in predictive maintenance. Each time the leadership changed, "new" ideas were implemented
which set back the program or eliminated it all together. Unless the top echelon drives RCM,
you're in an uphill battle.

Anonymous

Undeniable truth?
Learned

Unfortunately, the equipment that works the best, we know the least about, and the
equipment that gives us the most challenges, we are experts.

Anonymous
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 i
EAM scheduling confusion
Learned

As an EAM consultant I have been to a lot of client sites over the last 20 years. There seems to
be a fair amount of general confusion when it comes to developing a weekly schedule. This
problem lies with both the software vendors (R&D group) and the user community.

The weekly schedule report represents a set of work for next week. It should be automatically
generated by the software and be resource‐leveled so that it does not exceed availability.

On the software side there are vendors who utilize a drag and drop capability for work
scheduling. This requires the user to manually select the work order and drag it onto the
schedule. Although this is quite handy for daily scheduling it is not ideal for automatically
creating a resource‐leveled weekly schedule. The time it takes for a drag‐and‐drop session (for
creating a complete weekly schedule) could be anywhere from 30 min to 2 hr. In my mind it
should be 30 seconds using one click (which generates the schedule). I know of client sites that
spend up to 6‐8 man‐hours each week creating this schedule. This is a significant point.

On the user side, I have seen maintenance backlogs that are large (and mostly inaccurate). This
means several things:

1. The work is actually done, but the job remains open in the database.
2. The work order priority is not accurate. The user may be using “deadline” priorities when
they should be using “relative ranking of importance.”
3. The work type (categorization) field is blank or inaccurate. This field separates the type of
work, which relates to the order of fire ("work what job first").
4. Users sometimes have hundreds, maybe thousands, of INPRG (in progress) work statuses at
any given moment. But these jobs really aren't in‐progress.
5. Most importantly, the work order in the open maintenance backlog is not planned. The ideal
threshold is to have greater than 90 percent planned.

Admittedly, without an accurate database it makes it hard to go to the next level: advanced
scheduling. But until you can quickly and accurately generate a resource leveled schedule, then
you are underutilizing your EAM product and more importantly, limiting your work force
efficiency plus departmental coordination.

John Reeve, Synterprise Solutions, Chattanooga, TN
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 ii
All information is important
Learned

We serve the gas compression service in an oil field in northeast Perú. The equipment is
very old and presents considerable difficulties, however we are improving daily. The keys
of our maintenance improvements:

• A real team working with the field operator. We are partners
• A very good training plan of our people
• A great boss leading the team
• A maintenance engineering team working on site.

We use all the tools we have available, including those which are not electronic or
software based, such as taking a look at daily reports of operating parameters, processing
the data daily, creating dynamics graphics without special software, and observing data
trends. It is very simple, but normally those operating parameter reports go directly to the
trash or archives, where they are resurrected only after failure. The lesson: All the
information is important to maintenance improvement; we only need to look at the data
regularly.

Guillermo Moneta, Skanska del Perú, San Isidro, Lima, Perú

Penny wise, pound foolish
What you learned

Choosing a solution that is not the right fit but one that is the lowest cost, followed by lack of
training and implementation assistance, is still the major cause of CMMS implementations that
do not succeed.

We encounter situations all the time with prospects who want to get a system in as cheap as
possible which means that they invariably choose the wrong solution because it is solely based
on cost, and then compound the problem by cutting training services.

Our advice is always the same. “Don’t even think of starting this type of project unless you have
the financial commitment to do it right from start to finish. That includes not only choosing the
right software fit, but also the training and implementation assistance. Without all of these
pieces, you are just wasting your time and going down the road to frustration.”

Arthur Wosinski, Da‐trol Group Inc., Niagara on the Lake, ON, Canada

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 iii
Understanding the job
Learned

"Really, really know what the client is expecting and what you are planning to deliver. No
surprises."

Glenn Hinchcliffe, Asset Performance Technologies, Inc., Corrales, NM

Schedule reliably
Learned

All the efforts in work planning and work order systems are for naught until a reliable
work schedule is made, followed, and believed in by operations and maintenance. When
the work schedule drives the organization, there is a noticeable relaxation of franticness,
yet more work gets done. A reliable, working schedule promotes increased safety
performance and is a better place to work.

Perry Lovelace, John M Campbell Co, Norman, OK

CICO
What you learned

You hear it all the time “crap in crap out.”

That statement could not be truer than with a CMMS. The initial rollout after the pilot
needs to be as near perfect as possible (hence the pilot). Listening to a consultant that
says “Oh, you can always adjust as you go” has no clue of the magnitude and life form it
takes on as you go, or maybe they do. When you are forced to put crap in as you go, the
data becomes suspect and its integrity is lost (crap out). Your reports, KPI’s, maintenance
performance, and all metrics are now corrupt, rendering this multimillion dollar CMMS
useless, in my opinion. My advice to you, question the experts and take the time to do it
right the first time. I could go on but I don’t have the time. I’m too busy circumventing the
system with “work‐arounds” to make it work.

Herman Ortiz, City of Tucson, Tucson, AZ

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 iv
How we did it
The Story of a Maintenance Improvement Initiative

Watchwords
Story

What you don't measure, you don't know!

Nothing gained – Something lost!

RrR – Results require Resources!

Guenther Strunk, Kaiser Aluminum, Sherman, TX

Never judge a J‐box by its cover
Story

You’ve most likely heard the old saying “Never judge a book by its cover.” Well, this can also be
said for connections in motor circuits. This is a revelation found this year, almost by mistake,
but none the less a potential problem, was discovered and repaired and fortunately not added
to the list of reactive maintenance failures. I would also add that this type of “inactive”
connection problem is very rare and we were extremely lucky that it did not cause a failure.

When the original offline motor circuit testing equipment was first implemented several years
ago, the results from a 460‐v motor circuit under scrutiny came up with a resistive imbalance
(Delta R) of 6 percent, testing from the motor control center. This in itself is higher than I’d like
to see and, as I recall, the motor lead junction box was opened for a “visual” check only
because of time constraints and the actual connection coverings were not opened at that time
as there was no visual evidence of heating on the outside of the connection coverings. The
circuit was then checked on an increased frequency for a trend line. The percentage never
increased, so it was used as the reference for future testing.

After approximately 6 years of testing and collecting data at a 6 percent imbalance, a new
motor tester was brought into use and used without the previous historical data available; the
right thing was done when the 6 percent imbalance showed up again. This time the motor lead
J box connections were opened to enable a test on the actual motor leads to isolate the circuit
and determine for sure where the problem was. The motor itself checked very well at the
motor J box with less than 1.5 percent imbalance at the motor.

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 v
The culprit was an obvious loose connection that had welded itself back together at the 6
percent level and had been running this way for several years. The outside of the bad, welded
connection did not show any evidence of heating after all these years of operation, but
internally there was a different story. The heat previously generated had turned the inside
insulation white, about half way through and the arcing was very obvious on the lugs. We were
very fortunate to have found this “now inactive” connection problem before it caused a failure
or outage.

Another way to check or verify a suspected motor J box connection is to give it an infrared scan.
I have found that an increase in 1 percent Delta R from previous data (in a different case),
represented a 70 deg F difference in connection lead temperatures. Again, the actual culprit
connection could not be seen visually, even with the connection coverings removed, however
two different technologies confirmed it. Always isolate the suspected problem to a component
level.

When this situation arises again, we can also apply online motor circuit testing to see how
much voltage imbalance this introduces to the circuit. The opportunities just never seem to
end.

Jim Zuidema, Mr. Rotor Bar PdM Services, LLC, Bettendorf, IA
In name only
The story

A factor to take into account when standardizing titles, roles, and responsibilities of
maintenance positions is that planners actually do have to plan the work.

Bill Lyons, Holcim US, Inc., Dundee, MI

Must have vibration analysis
The story

If you do not have a great lubrication program, you better have a good vibration program

Jaime Viramontes, El Paso Electric, El Paso, TX

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 vi
Don’t forget to check the checklist

I had created my own troubleshooting checklist to follow when I’m trying to solve a difficult
problem. I’ve found that it works because it reminds you to look where you normally may not. For
some reason on this occasion, I ignored my own list and this issue took me several weeks to solve.

The problem was very uneven heat signatures from a 400‐amp MCC bucket that I was checking
with my infrared camera. The top middle fuse post was 30 deg F higher than the other two fuses. I
checked everything that I could think of, clean and tighten fuse posts, wiring is ok and not burnt or
loose, load is balanced, disassembled the bucket and cleaned every part of it. I still had the
problem. Actually, I have this problem in two identical buckets. They each feed an air compressor
and they each have the same problem. Naturally I’m thinking that it has to be a load issue. After
much time I discovered (finally realized) that the middle fuse in each bucket was a different brand,
same current rating and type, than the other two fuses. I replaced those different fuses and the
temps came in line with one another. As it turns out, that different fuse has a different heat
dissipating capacity. Had I followed my checklist, I’m sure I would have seen this earlier.

So, what’s the moral of the story? When you create a tool to help you on the job – use it.

Here is my checklist.

LOGICAL
• Is the problem mechanical or electrical?
• Is it a power or control problem?
• What is the logical or easy fix (fuses, ol’s, etc.)?
• Where is there physical movement (broken wire, relay contact, loose switch, etc.)?

PROBABLE
• Where is there physical movement (broken wire, relay contact, loose switch, etc.)?

POSSIBLE
• After the logical and probable, move on to possible (programmable controller issue,
proximity switch has indicator but no output, encoders, bad button or switch, control
transmitter, etc.)

NOT PRACTICAL/PROBABLE
• If the problem still exists, move on to issues that are not practical or probable (self‐
correcting problems such as conductive dust that burns clear, broken neutral wire,
over temperature failures, bad capacitors, etc.).

ILLOGICAL
• Finally, end with the illogical (insects that set off a light curtain, nature‐ humidity,
wind, occasional vibration, etc.).

ASSUME NOTHING
If problem is still present, go back and look at the things you ignored.
Art Counterman, Sappi Fine Paper, Allentown, PA
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 vii
Career Stories
Been there, done that
Getting things done
Career

While prioritizing and planning Maintenance work, a friend and seasoned maintenance
professional reminded me "not let what you can't do stand in the way of what you can do."
This simple phrase helps me to stay focused on getting things done and not getting bogged
down on the non‐value‐added difficult or impossible tasks that can creep onto an otherwise
meaningful to‐do list.

Ken Yasnowsky, Honeywell,

Become a financial wizard
Career

One lesson I was reminded of this year is that often people do not care how much you know or
do; only how much money you can save them. This tends to apply to any business situation,
including reliability. As reliability professionals, we have to learn the newspeak of
management. To get your projects approved or to show management your progress in
reliability, we must know and understand terms such as ROI (return on investment) and RONA
(return on net assets). We must create KOI’s (key operating indicators) that shows our progress
and how much our programs are affecting company profitability, either through direct savings
or cost avoidance.

To be successful, we must learn how to calculate and articulate many accounting terms to
“justify” our reliability efforts. Gone are the days in corporate culture when you could simply
ask for better infrastructure improvements and equipment upgrades and expect to get them.
We now have to prove that everything we do has a financial payback. And why not? We
should be looking for the right things that add value to the bottom line of the company. I
believe most people do.

The problem is that many reliability professionals have a hard time adjusting our thought
patterns from an engineering solution to a financially viable solution. Even NASA, where safety
is paramount, has budget constraints. I am not proposing that we do anything different in
reliability, only how we communicate it up the ladder. So sharpen your pencils and start
counting your beans. Remember, the corporate newspeak for reliability is “Show me the
Money” and you will be successful.

Lee Redd, Owens Corning, Amarillo, TX
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 viii
Political outsider
Career stories

Sometimes, you can do all the right things, but plant politics and relationships can cost you your job.

In my case, I had battled for 3 years to try to implement a basic PM program based on a simple calendar
schedule. Through successive production and plant managers, production planning would routinely
trump any maintenance schedules.

Finally, after the operations reached a low in terms of reliability and breakdowns, the production
department demanded a PM program. I worked out routine plans and scheduled the program quickly
because I had been working on them for the previous 3 years.

Obviously, the early overhauls and PMs were very intensive because the equipment had not been
maintained well for many years. Early expenses were much higher than budgeted, combined with some
major failures caused by production mistakes. (Of course, the demand to implement PMs came after the
budget was set for the year. Not to mention the budget I submitted had been cut substantially without
my input by corporate managers with no clue of what the equipment actually needed to be maintained.)
I assured management that costs would come down as the lines went through the PM cycle, and slowly
they did.

In addition, the plant began to run more reliably. Breakdown calls dropped and internal measures
similar to OEE improved dramatically to levels not seen in the 4 years I had worked there, and for many
years prior to that.

Unfortunately, the combination of the high expenses and the isolation of the maintenance organization
(I was literally at the furthest end of the site from my boss) and my inability/unwillingness to be part of
the “group” resulted in my being singled‐out when the budget issues hit the fan.

As a result, I was the scapegoat, and soon after the third plant manager in my 4 years at the plant
arrived, I was forced to resign. I left the plant just as it was clearly making huge strides in reliability, and
the operations people at lower levels were remarking at how well things were running.

In hindsight, I realized that I was not a good fit at that company, from a personality standpoint. I was
fortunate in my ensuing job search to have some options to weigh and take into account the
personalities of the people and organizations I had talked to. And I was able to find a company that so
far has been a good fit.

The moral to the story is beware the organizations that are inbred deeply and operate as a clique. You
will not be accepted and your ideas will probably never see the light of day. You will be frustrated, have
limited opportunity, and may ultimately lose your job.

Anonymous,
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 ix
Training‐go‐round
Career

Our experienced staff has for the most part moved onto retirement or other jobs within the
corporation and this trend is going to continue for many years to come. Therefore, we are
reevaluating our training programs from a number of different standpoints. Some aspects are
being dealt with as just‐in‐time initiatives. We will train our staff with respect to exactly what is
needed to fulfill a certain short term requirement. Other long term ongoing business strategies
are being met by our more formalized structured training programs that are being reviewed
regularly to keep them current.

These programs were initially developed in‐house as there were no vendors that could meet
our requirements. This was time consuming but crucial to our long term goals and
maintenance program success. Now we are accessing outside vendors for specific training
needs to speed up the review and redevelopment process. Our training programs are a double
edged sword. As our staff has become more versed in the trade, they are now being scooped
up by other departments, leaving us to hire more staff and continue the training progress again.

However frustrating the situation may be, the alternative (no training) is even more disastrous
for us and the other departments the come to raid our staff. There is no substitute for properly
trained and prepared field staff. Our very future, corporately, depends on how committed we
are to our training programs.

Doug Walker, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 x
Human Reliability and Culture

Like‐minded professionals
Human

There is nothing in this world of reliability that defines success like the realization that through
hard work, perseverance, and the help of like minded co‐workers you have made a difference.
It is usually the little things that reap the biggest rewards and friendships developed in your
quest to be the best you can last for ever. When you meet these people at a conference, share
war stories, successful or otherwise, you know you are talking to someone that wants you to
succeed. Thank you to all of you that have made a difference.

Geoff Generalovic, ArcelorMittal Dofasco, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Add time for safety
Human

As we learn more about safety, we add more requirements, procedures, and training to provide
a safe work environment. To make work safer, safety‐oriented procedures are implemented
and personal protective equipment is used. Tasks such as putting on arc flash resistant clothing
and performing a lockout/tagout takes more overall task time than previously when these
procedures were not used. While all good companies speak of their regard for safety,
implementing safety procedures adds time that is not usually included in the standard time to
accomplish the work. A task that took 8 hours before the added requirements is still scheduled
for 8 hr with no allowance for the additional time for safety procedures. When trying to meet
the old standard task time frame, safety is at risk. Make sure your time estimates include time
for safety procedures.

Joseph Cannatelli, P.E., Barnegat, NJ

Long live the king
Human

In maintenance, assumption is far from enough, and verification is king,

Rrekgetsi Chimeloane, SAB Ltd ‐ Alrode Brewery, Alrode, Alberton, Gauteng, South Africa

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xi

Grease the path
Human

If you make right path the path of least resistance it is easier to get things done the way they
should be done.

An example of maintenance taking the path of least resistance is using whatever grease is
available versus using the right grease. Where management has made coupling grease available
workers will use it. When the proper grease is not available, workers will use whatever grease
they can find. The same is true for all grease applications.

Thurman Speece, Arcelor Mittal Weirton, Weirton , WV

Mapping human errors
Human

I once led a project aimed at reducing the monthly preventive maintenance cycle time in a
production plant. We began documenting the entire process, but my team’s organizational
dynamics caused us to focus solely on the maintenance tasks that took place during the
downtime window. We had various maintenance tasks ranging from visual inspections and
lubrication routes to full pump and control valve overhauls. The work performed by various
craft lines equaled 20 hr worth of downtime each month.

We analyzed criticality information and completed PM reports to determine which tasks were
considered to be low hanging fruit. We then altered the frequencies of performing certain
maintenance tasks and eliminated redundant or nonvalue‐adding tasks. These changes yielded
a 4‐hr reduction in scheduled downtime each month. We performed a small pilot to prove that
our downtime reduction plan would not negatively impact uptime. The team was ecstatic
about these results. So, we submitted the solution/results to the leadership team. All of the
team members gave each other high fives and began celebrating our upcoming success.

Unfortunately, the operations team leader rejected our downtime reduction plan. You see, the
problem was that the total downtime window each month was actually 36 hr and not the 20 hr
dedicated specifically to maintenance tasks. Four hours out of 36 did not yield the level of
returns that operations were looking for. Operations leadership wanted to ensure that the
entire downtime window was analyzed and reduced, not just the maintenance portion.

So, finally, we came to the need for a value stream map (VSM). We mapped the entire process
from system shutdown to startup. We discovered that several handoffs between operations
and the maintenance occurred during the process. We also identified inconsistent practices
being used by personnel from both organizations, all of which increased the opportunity for
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xii
human error. We encountered several events during the downtime cycle where the lack of
effective communication between the two organizations was the cause of between 2 to 4 hr of
downtime each month. This was non‐value‐added time that was previously undocumented or
addressed. We also had wide variances between personnel in the time they needed to
complete standard maintenance tasks that took place each month.

After mapping the process, we held interviews with several key personnel to discuss realistic
goals and standards for task completion times. We also improved training of existing standard
practices for maintenance and operational tasks. Where necessary, we created new standard
operating procedures and maintenance standard practices to guarantee sustainability of the
necessary improvements. The project produced a 50 percent reduction in scheduled downtime
without an increase of unscheduled downtime. The combined efforts of using the right
analytical tools (human error reduction techniques, Six Sigma, and VSM) and excellent
teamwork by operations, maintenance, and reliability personnel led to use exceeding our
downtime reduction goals. Special thanks to the operations manager who pushed back on our
initial reduction of maintenance only tasks. His challenge forced us to rethink where our
opportunities for improvements really were in our processes.

James Bumpas, Meridium, Inc., Roanoke, VA

Head trumps hand
Human

Reliability starts in your head, not with your hands. I have been in the maintenance field for 20
years and for the first 10 years I was a hero maintenance person. I believe that was due to
training and a culture of getting the parts replaced and equipment back running as soon as
possible. It was not until I learned that reliability has to be in your head all of the time that I
discovered it is better to find the causes of the failure and correct them. This eliminates the
failure from happening again. This was a culture change for me and once I understood, I was
able to help drive a culture change to other people since they could see the results.

Alan D. King, ConocoPhillips Pipe Line Co., Ponca City, OK

PdM optimization challenge
Human Reliability and Culture

We were challenged this year to end a 5‐year predictive maintenance (PdM) contract with
a large player in the field. The service provider had delivered substandard reports with
poor communication to the 108 plants in the program.

We solicited eight of the top PdM service providers in the US to submit Request for
Quotations for a 3‐yr contract. The selection process, lasting 6 months, came down to two
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xiii
providers: a company that specializes in RCM consulting with PdM services and a
company specializing in remote online monitoring. The RCM consulting company is the
largest in the US and is spreading its coverage to the rest of the world. The online
monitoring company had a very strong knowledge base and support on large, high‐speed
compressors and turbo equipment.

The national maintenance and reliability programs engineer voted for the RCM company
to ensure a strong foundation with sustainability. The other 16 members of the selection
team voted on the remote online monitoring company.

The engineer had no other choice but to side with the reliability managers of the seven
different zones. His thoughts were: If I can’t beat them I might as well join them (just
joking). Many companies bring in predictive maintenance first because it will capture all of
the lowest hanging fruit. After 18 to 36 months you can start tapering in the RCM
technologies at the most opportunistic time.

With that being said and agreed upon by many of the authors of reliability books and
articles, I feel much better than the day I heard the votes.

Chad Broussard, Air Liquide, Houston, TX

Good behavior
Human reliability

The journey to excellence in reliability is not about technology; it is about changing how people
behave and ultimately what they believe. That drives future behavior. Having been through
such a transformation in the reliability leadership role, if I had it to do over again, I would gladly
trade a technologist on my staff for a good behavioral psychologist.

Samuel S McNair, Jr., CMRP, Life Cycle Engineering

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xiv
Other Helpful Lessons

10 steps to improved availability

Management: Plant audits and inspections; improve response time for breakdowns, action plans.

Shutdowns: Hold pre‐shutdown and post‐shutdown meetings.

Structure/personnel: Revise structure, fill vacancies, provide training for the people, and manage
extra people (contractors)

Risk control:
• Safety
• Less equipment damage

Training: Establish what is needed, keep a training roster

Stores: Improve response time for breakdowns, speed turnaround of repaired items, improve
buying turnaround

Tools: Replace broken tools, revise tool requirement, and assure availability of drawings and
manuals

Increase spares availability: Revise all spares requirements

Action on 80/20 delays:
• Mechanical/Electrical

Planning: Improve shutdown planning, revise all schedules, obtain feedback on delays, and assure
visibility of spares on information system

Christo Hartzer, Duferco Steel Processing (Pty)Ltd, , Saldanha Bay, West Coast, South
Africa

Write it down
Learned

You can not have a world class maintenance organization with out world class records.

Rick Geier, LFPPI, Longview, WA

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xv

Holistic Asset Management
Other

The reliability of a piece of equipment or process is the sum of the actions by the different
people in its history (cradle to the grave) that have designed, installed, operated,
maintained, and managed it.

Randy Riddell, International Paper, Courtland, AL

No time for UPtime
Other

The constant struggle to implement a PM program: “We can't shut down for a PM. That
machine doesn't run well enough to allow for the downtime.”

Suffering Supervisor, Muskegon, MI

Keep safe when lubricating
Other

Often the need to clean grease fittings or being sure no dirt is near a breather prior to removal
requires the use of a rag of some kind. Wiping down or cleaning these areas is usually trouble
free except where rotating shafts are near the area to be cleaned.

Using as short of a rag as possible is best practice. We tend to focus on only one end of the rag
we are using. The other end is often left dangling in the breeze. This is when accidents can
occur, when the other end gets caught on the shaft or coupling.

This happened to a coworker of mine. While he was telling and showing me what had
happened, I remember he could not stop shaking.

This can all take place in the blink of an eye. No matter how fast you react, you will not be able
to stop what is about to happen.

Be Safe

Garry L. Sands, Tembec Inc., Temiscaming, Que., Canada

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xvi
Floor level reliability
Other

All the high sounding tools like TPM, RCM, PdM, MRO, KPI, and Metrics are good, very good,
essential, and a must.

But if the floor level person makes a mistake, all these efforts go waste. It takes so much effort
and investment to bring out a fantastic safe and reliable car like a Mercedes, a BMW, or a
Lexus. But if the driver makes a mistake, all the efforts go in a heap of twisted metal and plastic!

The probability of an accident in a nuclear reactor is one in a billion or trillion (above a billion, it
all looks same to me), but a sequence of mistakes by the operator can remove a lot of zeros
from that billions or trillions as happened in Chernobyl.

We learned it the hard way. Now we have turned our full attention to the training of personnel.
The thrust is on the importance of avoiding short cuts, following the written procedures,
improving the procedures, having all concerned departments review proposal for change
(however small), and assigning only qualified technician/operator to critical work.

And we are seeing the change. The breakdowns have reduced considerably and floor level
mistakes are drastically reduced.

The simple rule is “Let your hands know what is right and do what is written.” Otherwise, all the
“writings” (ISO, PSM, SHEM, manuals, maintenance procedures, etc.) are only show pieces.

I call it floor level reliability.

Samuel Thomas, Eastern Petrochemicals, Jubail Industrial City, Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia

Excuses, excuses
Where did this come from?

Maintenance effort is often killed by the actions of maintenance leaders, primarily
engineering managers or others of similar rank.

Engineering is a complicated field that is little understood by any other professionals. As a
consequence, engineers have an easy task of fobbing off enquiries as to why the plants do
not operate to design capability. In my experience, the most abused excuses were
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xvii

1. We need to buy this gadget or that software if we are to get results.
2. Our plant is different, so you do not understand it.
3. We are being let down by the acquisition of spares.

In a nutshell, our engineering managers are failing to provide leadership that will make a
difference to the running of the plant. ‐ Anonymous

I never win anything

We have all heard someone say “I never win anything.” No doubt, many who are reading this
now feel the same way. So, why bother to enter some contest, right?

Well, back in 2006, we at Johns Manville, McPherson, KS decided to enter Uptime magazine’s
PdM (Infrared) Program of the Year contest. We did not expect to win. In fact, when we
entered, we just “knew” that we would not win. However, to our total amazement and shock,
we did win.

Mind you, the sole reason that we entered the Uptime PdM contest was to see how we
measured up to others. In other words, our goal was to learn more about ourselves. Funny, the
first thing we had to learn after winning this award was how to get over our shock. After that,
though, came the hard part‐‐fighting to improve!

To anyone who has tried it, building a good program is hard work. It takes several ingredients to
build a good program including: team work, training, commitment, and desire. Maintaining a
good program takes more of the same (and that’s not easy, either). Improving a program? We
have found improving our program to be a real battle. Take everything that it takes to build a
good program and multiply it by a power of 2, or more.

Yes, we learned how to build a good program. Next, we learned something about maintaining a
good program. Finally, we are learning how to battle, scratch, and fight in order to improve our
program.

Entering an Uptime PdM Program of the Year contest has been a good thing for us. Win or not,
it helped us learn about our program and how to share it with others...

Nick Bohonik, Johns Manville

All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xviii
Other Reliability Resources
Uptime Magazine – http://www.uptimemagazine.com

Maintenance‐Tips Archives – http://www.maintenance‐tips.com

Online Tutorials – http://www.rcm‐1.com

MaintenanceConference.com – http://www.MaintenanceConference.com

MRO‐Zone Bookstore – http://books.mro‐zone.com

MRO‐Zone Directory – http://shopper.mro‐zone.com

MRO‐Zone Search Engine – http://www.mro‐zone.com

Reliability Resumes – http://www.reliabilityresumes.com

VibrationSchool.com – http://www.vibrationschool.com

CMMSCity.com – http://www.cmmscity.com

Lubrication TV – http://www.lubrication.tv

Reliability Radio – http://www.reliabilityradio.com

MaintenanceForums.com – http://www.maintenanceforums.com/eve

Association for Maintenance Professionals – http://www.maintenance.org
All print and electronic rights are the property of Reliabilityweb.com © Copyright 2008 xix

Maintenance and Reliability

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Maintenance and Reliability

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Maintenance and Reliability

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen