Archive | April, 2005

231

6:00 am
April 1, 2005
Print Friendly

Senior Management must be committed to maintenance process

Senior management commitment is required for any initiative to be successful. Simply stated, without its commitment or demonstrated leadership, initiatives stall, fall substantially short of expectations, or just plain fail.

Today, perhaps more than ever, companies must improve safety, reduce total cost, meet shorter delivery cycles, and meet more stringent quality requirements. Even the most competitive companies must improve in order to compete with off-shore competitors. Driving this need for improvement are tight capital for investment, an increased regulatory demand, the reality of global competition, and the “urge to merge.” Every company simply has to get better in order to survive. The best way to insure survival is to continually improve results by continually improving business processes, i.e., the way we do business.

The number one initiative in most companies today is safety. In today’s society it’s unacceptable to injure or kill people. The good news is senior management has recognized this and is committed to and leads the safety initiatives in their organization. This could be attributed to the fact that, if there are accidents, senior management is the first to be charged and potentially face a jail term.

The usual second on the list of competing initiatives is quality improvement. The driver in this case is the customer and is well understood by senior management. Today’s reality is that plant operations are viewed as a system of processes to which quality system principles are applied—consistency and continuous improvement. To this end, numerous process improvement techniques are available—total quality management (TQM), total

productive maintenance (TPM), and lean manufacturing. Unfortunately, many of these programs grind to a halt because they fail to generate the desired results.

When many senior managers utter the word “maintenance” it is as if they are speaking of a terrible illness. Senior management has to include maintenance and reliability excellence in the organization’s top priority initiatives; they must be committed and demonstrate leadership. Maintenance must be viewed as a process also.

Enhanced asset reliability is a critical element in manufacturing performance and market competitiveness, maybe even survival, in today’s manufacturing environment. Management must recognize the impact and importance of increasing equipment availability and utilization, increasing maintenance productivity and resource utilization, and increasing the quality and responsiveness of maintenance as a critical element in manufacturing performance and market competitiveness.

There can be no doubt that well-executed maintenance processes can play a major role in reducing quality defects, increasing production capacity and throughput, and improving overall plant productivity and profitability. Maintenance and reliability excellence is an investment in an organization’s ability to produce a product or provide a service. It’s not a necessary evil or dammed cost.

Unfortunately, many senior managers view the job of maintenance as “fix things when they break.” When in reality, if breakdowns occur maintenance has failed. The job of maintenance is to maintain things so they never break. In some companies, fast reactive maintenance is often viewed as good maintenance performance.

However, it is actually lousy maintenance, just fast service. Repairs are made because “real” maintenance wasn’t done. Proactive maintenance is work that is planned and scheduled and is completed at a time in the equipment’s life cycle when the condition being corrected can restore the equipment to its design capability with a minimum investment.

It is likely that senior management does recognize the need to improve maintenance and reliability excellence. What they haven’t recognized is that maintenance and reliability is a process and requires continual improvement of business processes. Unfortunately, they keep doing what they have always done and expect a different result. With safety they got it because they are being held accountable by society. With quality they got it because the customer is holding them accountable.

How many more jobs have to be lost to other countries or how many more companies have to fold before they realize that they also are responsible for maintenance and reliability excellence? This initiative requires and demands their commitment and leadership.—Fred Dunbrack

Continue Reading →

204

6:00 am
April 1, 2005
Print Friendly

The Best Tool For The Job

What do Peter Drucker, the management guru, and Bruce Lee, the late martial arts master, have in common? Not much on the surface, but both were paradigm busters. Both came up during preparation for the luncheon talk I gave at the Reliability Centered Maintenance Managers Forum last month in Clearwater Beach, FL—Drucker during research into management science and Lee during a break watching TV where I caught a piece of his biography on a cable channel.

Drucker, in his 1954 book The Practice of Management, outlined a new approach for managing all types of businesses. It was Management by Objectives (MBO) and it reigned supreme during the 1960s and beyond.

MBO is made up of five principles:
• Cascading of organizational goals and objectives
• Specific objectives for each member
• Participative decision making
• Explicit time period
• Performance evaluation and feedback.

MBO also introduced the SMART method for checking the validity of the objectives: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time related.

Lee, using techniques from many fighting disciplines, developed an innovative martial arts style that more closely approached actual hand-to-hand street fighting than other styles. He called it Jeet Kune Do—Way of the Intercepting Fist.

He was instrumental in revolutionizing the sport of karate, leading it toward a full-contact sport. Steve McQueen, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Chuck Norris were among his more well-known students.

What did they have in common besides developing a revolutionary style? They both had a similar perspective about what they were doing. They realized that there are many techniques for fighting and managing, but the participant who has a wide skill set and can recognize when each is appropriate is best prepared to deal with whatever life serves up.

Lee’s style evolved into what he called the Style of No Style. Being somewhat of a philosopher, he noted that “having no way as the way. Having no limitation as your limitation” and “to float in totality, to have no technique, is to have all techniques.”

Forty years after developing MBO, Drucker said, “It’s just another tool. It is not the great cure for management inefficiency. MBO works if you know the objectives; 90 percent of the time you don’t.”

They are both saying that we must hone our skills and strive to understand the problem before we commit to a solution, and then select the best tool for the job.

Robert C. Baldwin, CMRP, Editor

Continue Reading →

229

6:00 am
April 1, 2005
Print Friendly

Asset Management Methodology at Work

Condition monitoring provides benefits and high return on investment.

The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) is a large, unionized public utility serving 2.6 million people in the Boston metropolitan area. In 2000, the MWRA embarked on a comprehensive, multi-phased asset management initiative. Its program includes dedicated staff along with a diverse senior management steering committee who organized early, communicated often, and conducted research and cross-industry benchmarking that allowed for a timely implementation of best practices, resultant efficiencies, and cost- saving benefits.

 

0405mwraultrasound1

Dan Parry uses ultrasonic equipment to listen to pump bearings.

As part of this initiative, MWRA’s Deer Island water treatment plant has purchased condition monitoring equipment and providing training to more than 50 maintenance technicians over the past 2 years. The maintenance staff has been performing vibration monitoring and spectral analysis, lubricating oil sampling, acoustic ultrasonic detection, ultrasonic thickness testing, laser alignment, and infrared thermography tasks.

 

Ultrasonic detection recommended
Reliability centered maintenance (RCM) analysis of the plant’s primary scum pumps resulted in the recommendation of a preventive maintenance task using acoustic ultrasonic detection to monitor the motor and pump bearings to provide advance warning of potential failures.

Using an ultrasonic detector from SDT North America, Cobourg, ON, condition monitoring engineer Dan Parry found unacceptable noises and noise levels in 10 of 14 primary scum pumps, indicating potential bearing problems. The next step maintenance planner Michael Costa took, however, was to collect lubricating oil samples from six of the pumps’ gearboxes and send them off to National Tribology Services, Peabody, MA, for testing.

Results showed viscosities that were much too high, indicating that the wrong lubricating oil had been used. Oil in all the pumps was changed to the correct oil and ultrasonic monitoring was repeated.

This time, only two pumps were found with unacceptable noise levels. Costa scheduled an alignment check before considering replacement of the bearings.

 

0405mwraalignment1

Mike Costa (left) and Bob Greatorex use laser alignment equipment on one of the pumps at the plant.

Bad coupling found
While checking one machine with laser alignment equipment from Ludeca, Miami, FL, mechanics Bob Greatorex and Peter McGee immediately saw that the coupling was in bad shape and noted that the machine was badly out of alignment. A new coupling was installed and the machine was laser aligned. Repeated ultrasonic detection confirmed that the problems had been solved. No further maintenance was required.

Preventive maintenance expenditures of about $280 for ultrasound testing, oil sampling, coupling replacement, and alignment resulted in cost savings that can be estimated in two ways:

1. If one machine had been allowed to run to failure, it would have cost about $5600 in parts and labor to completely rebuild it.

2. If more intrusive maintenance (replacement of bearings) had been performed after the first round of ultrasonic monitoring, the total maintenance cost for one machine would have been about $3400.

Avoided costs for this maintenance event range from $5320 for scenario 1 to $3120 for scenario 2 for each machine. When applied to all 14 primary scum pumps, expending $3920 for preventive maintenance provided cost savings of $43,680 to $74,480, while increasing equipment availability and reliability. s

Nancy Ettele is program manager, condition monitoring, at MWRA’s Deer Island Treatment Plant, 190 Tafts Ave., Winthrop, MA 02152; (617) 660-7725

Continue Reading →

283

6:00 am
April 1, 2005
Print Friendly

More Educational Opportunities at MARTS 2005

Maintenance & Reliability Technology Summit (MARTS) is designed to provide a comprehensive learning environment for everyone responsible for plant uptime and equipment availability—managers, technicians, supervisors, and engineers.

Event producers, MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY and ReliabilityWeb.com, have expanded this year’s offering with Professional Developent Courses and focused mini-summit roundtable sessions. In addition, the Lubrication Summit conference will be co-located with MARTS.

Conference attendees will be able to choose sessions from both MARTS and the Lubrication Summit events to fit their learning objectives.

Professional development courses
Two Professional Development CoursesMaintenance and Reliability Professional Review and Certified Lubrication Specialist Review—for managers looking for in-depth focused reviews and technicians who want to build their skill sets are scheduled to cover three days of course time (May 23-25).

For MARTS attendees who may be seeking certification, examinations will be available on May 26 for Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional and Certified Lubrication Specialist.

Enterprise managers forum
Brad Peterson, CMRP, president and CEO of Strategic Asset Management, Inc., and members of the new Center for Enterprise Asset Management (CEAM) will provide a high-level overview of important issues involved with successfully running maintenance and reliability processes across large organizations to strengthen enterprise performance.

Practitioners, mentors to share experiences
In the Maintenance Experience track of the two-day conference portion of MARTS, you will have an opportunity to learn from practitioners and mentors with years of practical experience who have faced and overcome challenges similar to those that confront you in your plant.

Three North American Maintenance Excellence (NAME) Award winners—Aera Energy, Alcoa Aluminerie de Deschambault, and Harman International—will share their experiences in organizing for excellence, managing work, and managing material.

Charles Latino will share his plant-floor experiences leading to the development of the reliability approach and explain how it works.

Jack R. Nicholas, Jr., will discuss his observations in the Navy and in industry that led him to propose procedures-based maintenance.

Focus on elements of RCM
MARTS is providing an opportunity for attendees to receive an in-depth review of reliability centered maintenance. One session is being devoted to each of the seven elements of RCM—functions, functional failures, failure modes, failure effects, failure consequences, proactive tasks and task intervals, and default actions. Speakers are expected to highlight each session with case studies. The Reliability track will again be chaired by Jack R. Nicholas, Jr., who also will provide an update to the RCM Scorecard project.

Maintenance Practice track
Sessions covering the results of a 16-part benchmarking survey of best practices in maintenance management and a report on the metrics and definitions work of the SMRP Best Practices Committee will provide attendees an insight into performance measures. Other sessions provide a variety of learning opportunities directed at day-to-day maintenance functions, from improving equipment bases to the role of predictive maintenance in job planning.

Technical and commercial innovations
The Technology track will provide an opportunity to hear the latest from suppliers of maintenance and reliability products and services in a series of information-packed concurrent presentations. Topics will cover subjects such as infrared, ultrasound, vibration, CMMS software, and more.

Views from the summits
Four mini-summit sessions and the all-conference Maintenance & Reliability Technology Summit of Excellence, scheduled for the last half day of the conference, will provide an opportunity for discussion of major issues and obstacles to maintenance and reliability excellence.

Panelists for the mini-summits—Best Practices and Key Performance Indicators, Mastering Reliability, Monitoring Machinery Health, and Lubrication Excellence—will be made up of leaders from previous sessions.

Invited panelists for the all-conference Maintenance & Reliability Technology Summit of Excellence are John Mitchell, Terry Wireman, Al Weber, Ken Bannister, and Ken Peoples.

In-depth workshops
Eleven day-long workshops are available for in-depth learning in maintenance and reliability strategies and tactics. Choices include Performance Indicators, Materials Management, Reliability Centered Maintenance, Predictive Maintenance, Lubrication, Oil Analysis, Lean Maintenance, Vibration Analysis, and Cause Mapping. See the complete list in the section Workshop Offerings.

Register for MARTS online
Register online for the two-day conference, pre- and post-conference workshops, and three-day professional development courses. Workshop fees are $295 each, conference fee is $695 for the two days, and professional development course fee is $995 for three days. Special combination rates are available.

Conference Program

Schedule at a glance
Tuesday, May 24 program
Wednesday, May 25 program

Maintenance Practice

Tuesday, May 24
8:00-9:30 a.m.
MARTS Enterprise Managers Forum
Brad Peterson, CMRP, president and CEO of Strategic Asset Management, Inc., and members of the new Center for Enterprise Asset Management (CEAM)
High-level overview of running maintenance and reliability processes across large organizations to strengthen enterprise performance.
.
Managing Maintenance Work
10:30-11:15 a.m.
The Role of Preventive and Predictive Maintenance in Successful Planning
Ken Bass, CMRP
The potential failure-failure curve will be discussed to aid in the understanding of the power of the predictive/preventive maintenance functions. Through this curve, an understanding of the capabilities of the various predictive technologies will be gained as well as the importance of the use of quantitative preventive maintenance tasks.

11:15-12:00 p.m.
Maintenance Outsourcing
Brad McCully, ATS
Learn how maintenance operations can serve as a profit center, with no additional capital investment. Understand how to avoid off-shoring U.S. manufacturing jobs by enabling more efficient asset productivity. Discover what it takes to build better “wrench time” productivity into factory operations. Find out about the critical role that improved maintenance performance plays in achieving asset productivity.

Leveraging Technology
1:30-2:15 p.m.
Open Operations and Maintenance
Alan Johnston, president, MIMOSA
Learn about OpenO&M standards for enabling a comprehensive information network for operations and maintenance, paving the way for true enterprise optimization.

2:15-3:00 p.m.
Intelligent Maintenance Systems
Dr. Jay Lee, chairman, Center for Intelligent Maintenance Systems
Explore new approaches to maintenance that leverage latest sensor and computing technologies to predict and prevent downtime.

Managing MRO Materials
4:00-4:45 p.m.
Managing Maintenance Inventory
Terry Wireman, CPMM, Editor, Lubrication & Fluid Power magazine
Depending on the industry, maintenance spare parts can comprise from 40-60 percent of the total maintenance budget. Spare parts controls are imperative to managing maintenance in a cost-effective manner.

Wednesday, May 26
Improving Performance
Special Extended Session
8:00-9:30 a.m.

Improving Equipment Reliability by Improving Equipment Bases
Michael Eisenbiese, Fluor PTSS
The reliability of rotating equipment is directly related to the quality of the equipment base. The design and installation of precision equipment bases will be presented. The attendee will be able to use the information in this presentation to design and install precision bases. A set of generic base specifications will be distributed to each participant. These generic specifications will be specific enough to allow the participant to use these specifications to develop specifications for his/her maintenance program.

Measuring Performance
10:30-11:15 a.m.
Maintenance Metrics for the Millennium
Ramesh Gulati, PE, CMRP, and Jerry D. Kahn, PE, CMRP
You will be updated on the most commonly used metrics and definitions in the maintenance and reliability community (e.g., MTBF, downtime, etc.). Learn the current status of the SMRP metrics development and have the opportunity to provide feedback in open forum discussions.

11:15-12:00 p.m.
Best Practices Maintenance Management Benchmark Survey
Terry Wireman, Lubrication & Fluid Power magazine, and Terrence O’Hanlon, ReliabilityWeb.com.
The results of a year-long 16-part Best Practices Maintenance Management benchmarking project are reported and analyzed. Each attendee will receive the full 16-part survey report and summary.

Mini-Summit Session
1:30-2:30 p.m.
Best Practices, Key Performance Indicators
Invited panelists: Ramesh Gulati, John Mitchell, Terry Wireman
Doing the right thing and measuring your progress are fundamental to success in today’s competitive environment. Come hear practitioners and consultants, conference speakers, and workshop leaders discuss issues that can help put you out front in the race for bottom line results.

Maintenance Experience

Tuesday, May 24

Voice of Excellence
8:00-8:45 a.m.
Organizing for Success—The North American Maintenance Excellence (NAME) Award Approach
Learn how NAME Award winners organized for their journey toward maintenance excellence.

8:45-9:30 a.m.
Managing Maintenance Work—The NAME Award Approach
Presentations by NAME Award winners: Aera Energy, Alcoa Aluminerie de Deschambault, and Harman International.

10:30-11:15 a.m.
Managing Maintenance Materials—The NAME Award Approach
Presentations by NAME Award Winners: Aera Energy, Alcoa Aluminerie de Deschambault, and Harman International.

11:15 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Peer Assessment and Benchmarking—The NAME Award Approach
Learn the benefits of the NAME Award program from representatives of the Foundation for Industrial Excellence, sponsor of the award

Voice of Experience
1:30-3:00 p.m.
The Reliability Approach—How it started, how it works
Charles Latino, Reliability Center Inc.
Charles Latino, a long-time practitioner and founder of Reliability Center, made a difference for the many people he taught and worked with over the years. Join him as he shares lessons he learned during his five-decade journey toward reliability excellence. Learn what worked, what didn’t work, and what many of us currently overlook from the man who “wrote the book” on industrial reliability.

4:00-4:45 p.m.
Maintenance Experiences from Iraq
Ricky Smith, MAJ, FA, USA
Many parallels exist between industrial, facility, and vehicle maintenance operations in industry and those that occur in the military. Examples will be illustrated using personal experiences as a maintenance company commander in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Wednesday, May 25

Voice of Experience
8:00-8:45 a.m.
RCM Scorecard Status Report
Jack Nicholas Jr., P.E., CMRP, CEO, Maintenance Quality Systems LLC
This presentation will provide a status report on the RCM Scorecard effort that resulted from the challenge to SMRP members at the 2003 conference and MARTS 2005 RCM track attendees to expand on an initial set of metrics that anyone contemplating analysis of a system can use.

8:45-9:30 a.m.
Procedures-Based Maintenance
Jack Nicholas, Jr., PE, CMRP, CEO, Maintenance Quality Systems
A compelling argument for the use of detailed, written, and/or imbedded procedures for conducting maintenance (and operations) of any plant, vehicle, or system. The presenter compares results of four statistically significant studies on conditional probability of failure over the past 30 years. A significant reduction in the rates of catastrophic failures is explained.

Extended Session
10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Transitioning to Procedures-Based Maintenance
Jack Nicholas, Jr., PE, CMRP, CEO, Maintenance Quality Systems
In this final section the presenter will provide four approaches that have been found successful in making the transition to becoming a “Procedure Based Maintenance Organization.” The approaches are applicable to both large and small organizations.

Mini-Summit Sessions
1:30-2:30 p.m.
Choose from four Mini-Summits:
Best Practices, Key Performance Indicators
Mastering Reliability
Monitoring Machinery Health, or
Lubrication Excellence (see Lubrication track for details).

Reliability & RCM

Tuesday, May 24

RCM: Functional Analysis and Failure Identification
8:00-8:45 a.m.
RCM Q1: What are the functions of the asset in its operating context?
Al Weber, Ivara Corp.
This session will present specific examples, in the form of a case study, of companies that have benefited from defining the true function and associated performance standards of an asset. Also highlighted will be the results these companies have achieved by implementing reliability centered maintenance—in particular question one of the seven basic questions.

8:45-9:30 a.m.
RCM Q2: In what ways can it fail to fulfill its function?
Doug J. Plucknette, Reliability Solution, Inc.
In the 27 years following the release of Nowlan and Heap’s “Reliability Centered Maintenance” many have struggled to understand the importance of each step in this seven-step reliability tool. The process has been studied, tested, changed, and rearranged to save time and resources. These changes often try to eliminate one or more of the seven steps critical in completing a successful effort. In reality, the key to speed in performing your analyses while still maintaining a high quality output is understanding the value in each step of this proven process.

RCM Failure Modes and Failure Effects Analysis
10:30-11:15 a.m.
RCM Q3: What causes each functional failure?
Nancy Regan, The Force, Inc.
Since the first powered flight in 1903, 80 percent of all aircraft crashes have been due to human error—15 percent of those crashes can be traced back to faulty maintenance or inspections. Human error is also a serious problem in too many other endeavors including commercial industry, the medical field, and nuclear power plants. This presentation explores the issue in detail and demonstrates how the identification of failure modes during the RCM process is a powerful error-fighting solution for these all-too-often fatal causes.

11:15 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
RCM Q4: What happens when each failure occurs?
Alan Katchmer, Strategic Technolgies, Inc.
A properly prepared failure effect statement will not only allow your team to accurately assess the consequences associated with the Failure Mode under discussion, but the information also can be used to prepare reliability improving training modules for the operators, maintainers, and engineers and to prepare very effective troubleshooting guides that can substantially cut out equipment downtime. It also will enhance current operating procedures and substantially change the current spares policies.

RCM: Failure Consequences and Maintenance Tasks
1:30-2:15 p.m.
RCM Q5: In what ways does each failure matter?
Bill Mercier, T-Solutions
Focus on approaches to define and rank failure consequences in terms of severity as the presenter discusses this critical step of the RCM process and how it integrates with the overall RCM process.

2:15-3:00 p.m.
RCM Q6: What should be done to predict and prevent each failure?
Richard Overman
Question 6 of the SAE standard deals with proactive tasks and task intervals. The standard identifies proactive tasks as “on-condition, scheduled discard, scheduled restoration, and failure finding tasks.” This discussion addresses each of these task types in detail. You’ll be given information and ideas that will help you effectively evaluate when each task is technically feasible and worth doing.

RCM: Default Actions
4:00-4:45 p.m.
RCM Q7: What should be done if a proactive task cannot be found?
Bill Keeter, ARMS Reliability Engineers-USA, Inc.
Often during RCM analysis we identify failures for which a suitable proactive task cannot be identified. When this occurs we must decide whether running to failure or redesigning the system is an appropriate strategy. During this session Keeter will lead a group discussion on how to identify what steps should be taken if a suitable proactive task cannot be found.

Wednesday, May 25

Reliability Methods
8:00-8:45 a.m.
Introduction to Weibull
Bill Keeter, ARMS Reliability Engineers-USA, Inc.
Learn how to integrate information about failure mechanisms, maintenance costs, and operational costs of failures into the maintenance strategy decision process. The session will focus on the determination of strategies that optimize the maintenance task interval based on the Weibull characteristics of equipment failures.

8:45-9:30 a.m.
Proactive Root Cause
Bob Latino, Reliability Center Inc.
Traditionally RCA is utilized only after an event has occurred, so how can one call it proactive? This truism is explored through trying to understand the current paradigms that exist about RCA, what it is, and when it is used. Do we really have to wait for an undesirable outcome to occur in order to use RCA?

10:30-11:15 a.m.
Human Error Reduction
Mark Latino, Reliability Center Inc.
The human element is still a significant part of productivity. The amount of human error can be reduced by a factor of 3 to 4. There are 12 major human error traps that repeat enough to be considered chronic failures of the human element. This talk will discuss some of these and give suggestions to avoid human error traps.

11:15 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Cause Mapping: An Effective Approach to Root Cause Analysis
Mark Galley, CRE, ThinkReliability
Learn how Cause Mapping is used to effectively analyze, document, communicate, and solve complex problems in business using existing tools and software. Cause Mapping is a systems-based method of root cause analysis and is used for problem solving, incident investigation, process improvement, and Six Sigma projects.

Mini-Summit Session
1:30-2:30 p.m.
Mastering Reliability
Invited panelists: Al Weber, Charles Latino, Jack R. Nicholas, Jr.
Equipment reliability is the underpinning of lean maintenance and other enterprise and manufacturing performance processes. Join other conference participants in sharing experiences about what works and what doesn’t work when using reliability methods and reliability centered maintenance.

Technology

Tuesday, May 24

8:00 a.m.-4:45 p.m.
Technical and Commercial Innovations
A series of information-packed concurrent presentations by suppliers of maintenance and reliability products and services. Topics will cover subjects such as infrared, ultrasound, vibration, sensors, CMMS software, and more.

Wednesday, May 25

8:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Technical and Commercial Innovations
A series of information-packed concurrent presentations by suppliers of maintenance and reliability products and services. Topics will cover subjects such as infrared, ultrasound, vibration, sensors, CMMS software, and more.

Mini-Summit Session
1:30-2:30 p.m.
Monitoring Machinery Health
Panelists to be announced
Accurate assessment of the condition of plant equipment is one of the fundamental principles of proactive maintenance. Come hear what conference speakers and participants have to say about selecting, using, and integrating predictive technologies to help increase plant reliability.

Lubrication

Tuesday, May 24

Special Extended Session
8:00-9:30 a.m.

Implementing Lubrication Excellence
Kenneth D. Peoples, Boeing Airplane Co.
Understanding seven basic principles can help change or improve how your Operations views the benefit of a lubrication process.

10:30-11:15 a.m.
Perspectives on STLE
Dr. Robert Gresham, Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers
An overview of STLE education and certification programs for industry professionals in the lubrication engineering and oil analysis fields.

11:15 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Contamination Control
Rojean Thomas, Trico Mfg. Corp.
Learn about various contaminants and their affect on lubrication and equipment and different proven methods for controlling contamination ingression.

Special Extended Session
1:30-3:00 p.m.

Wear Debris Analysis
Ray Dalley, Predict
Nonintrusive diagnostics such as vibration, motor testing, spectrometrics, and ferrography offer benefits to processing, power, and manufacturing industries.

4:00-4:45 p.m.
Sampling Techniques 101
Kevin Slater, Schematic Approach
Data acquisition presents an equipment and lubricant health profile, yet sampling techniques need to be sound for good results.

Wednesday, May 25

Special Extended Session
8:00-9:30 a.m.

Equipment Reliability
Steve Reilly, Design Maintenance Systems, Inc. (DMSI)
Asset Basic Care programs use operations, maintenance, and/or lubrication staff to physically inspect and verify the operating condition of work areas, processes, and fixed/mobile assets.

Special Extended Session
10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

Condition Based Information Management
Andy Ling, Dingo Maintenance Systems
This interactive tutorial session will illustrate how management of machine condition information is trending to a more “process-oriented” approach.

Mini-Summit Session
1:30-2:30 p.m.
Lubrication Excellence
Invited panelists: Dr. Robert Gresham, Ken Peoples, Ken Bannister
Excellence in machinery lubrication depends on having the right people, right equipment, right lubricants, right information, and much more. Hear experts, drawn from the ranks of practitioners and consultants, discuss the most important issues that affect lubrication excellence.

Workshop Offerings

Eleven workshops will be presented over 2 days at MARTS 2005. Each workshop begins at 8 a.m. and ends at 3 p.m. Lunch and breaks are included with the workshop fee of $295. Attendees will receive a significant package of course materials including, in some cases, the workshop leader’s hardcover book. Registration information is available at www.MARTSconference.com. Seating is limited.

Pre-Conference Workshops, Monday, May 23

Developing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Terry Wireman will cover issues such as how to conduct a benchmarking project, some traps to benchmarking, and the type of benchmarking that works best for maintenance.

Optimized Equipment Life Management
John Mitchell will outline the concepts and processes utilized successfully by leading organizations and top professionals to establish and maintain industry best performance.

Reliability Centered Maintenance
Peter Stock reviews the fundamentals of physical asset management and reliability centered maintenance. The workshop will explore 12 key areas where fundamental changes need to be made in the way we think.

Integrating Predictive Maintenance Technologies
Jim Hall, with the assistance of Jim Brady and Robert Richardson, will demonstrate the value of integrating technologies such as airborne ultrasound, infrared imaging, and vibration analysis with hands-on displays and case histories.

Cause Mapping—Effective Root Cause Analysis
Mark Galley will explain this visual system thinking approach for analyzing, documenting, communicating, and solving complex problems.

Lubrication Fundamentals
Ken Bannister will provide a fundamental understanding of how and why effective lubrication practices are an essential aspect of industrial equipment maintenance.

Post-Conference Workshops, Thursday, May 26

Lean Maintenance: Doing More with Less
Robert Williamson will help participants understand the basics of lean manufacturing, lean equipment management, and the roots of “lean maintenance” found in the frequently misunderstood TPM.

Closing the Material Gap: Integrated Materials and Reliability Programs
Chuck Cox will highlight each step in the process of building storeroom practices that boost the benefits of reliability programs.

Reliability Engineering for Maintenance Practitioners
Vee Narayan will address aspects of equipment failure: both physical degradation mechanisms as well as their statistical treatment. Participants will hear when and how to apply a variety of reliability tools for their most cost-effective use.

Introduction to Vibration Analysis
Scott Dow will introduce participants to the basic theory of vibration amplitude, frequency, trends, and spectrums, with special emphasis on the practical aspects of these subjects.

Oil Analysis
Ray Thibault, CLS, OMA, will show how specification tests relate to field performance. This understanding is necessary to select the best oil for a specific application.

back to text

Professional Development Courses, Examinations

Two Professional Development Series short courses cover three days of course time (May 23-25). Course registration fee is $995 for the 8 a.m.-3 p.m. sessions, including lunch.

Maintenance & Reliability Professional Review
Presented by Mastering Maintenance Distance Learning, this course will cover proven techniques for building a high-performance maintenance program. It is based on the Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals’ skills inventory. The instructor is Dave Krings, CMRP.

Lubrication Specialist Review
Presented by Ray Thibault, this course will prepare participants to evaluate and select the proper lubricants to use, recommend changes in lubricants, learn to consolidate lubricant inventory, conduct a lube survey, and create and manage a used lubricant analysis program.
To register for short courses, telephone toll free (800) 223-3423,

Continue Reading →

654

6:00 am
April 1, 2005
Print Friendly

Making Machine Train Alignment More Efficient and Accurate

Machine trains, like all directly coupled equipment, must be aligned. The objective of any machine train alignment is to align the equipment within specified tolerances at operating conditions. Accurate shaft alignment will increase the life of machine components such as bearings, seals, and couplings, and prolong the life of the machinery. As a result, costly unscheduled downtime is reduced. If alignment can be improved, machinery failure rates decrease. One way to improve the process of alignment is by using a laser alignment system.

0405-ludeca-1

Fig. 1. Schematic of steam turbine-boiler feed pump-gearbox-booster pump machine train that was recently aligned using a laser alignment system.

A machine train consisting of a steam turbine, boiler feed pump, gearbox, and booster pump—shown schematically in Fig. 1—was recently aligned at a power company using a laser shaft alignment system. Because a laser alignment tool was used, the time necessary to complete this alignment task was reduced from 4 days to 2 days. The following steps were taken to align the machine using THE laser alignment system.

Alignment obstacles
This machine train possessed many alignment obstacles: the turbine base had settled over time due to environmental issues; the booster pump was subjected to considerable machine frame distortion (soft foot) due to excessive pipe strain; and prior to the outage, the gearbox was overhauled and the bearings were replaced.

0405-ludeca2

Fig. 2. Coupling 1, between the turbine and the main feed pump

Laser mounting accessories
In this example, the provided chain brackets used to mount the laser and receiver were not sufficient to take readings at each of the three couplings. Each coupling required additional accessories for mounting.

Coupling 1, between the turbine and the main feed pump, utilized the standard chain brackets, using the provided 600mm long chains to accommodate the large shaft diameter (Fig. 2). Coupling 2, between the main feed pump and the gearbox, required narrow brackets due to extremely limited clearance axially (Fig. 3). Coupling 3, between the gearbox and booster pump, used magnetic brackets with offset support posts because of obstructions to rotation and limited axial clearance (Fig. 4). The coupling bolts protruded from the coupling hub, requiring a different option than straight support posts. The hardware obstacles were resolved with the optional accessories supplied by the manufacturer of the laser alignment kit.

0405-ludeca3

Fig. 3. Coupling 2, between the main feed pump and the gearbox

“As found” measurements
Multipoint mode. At couplings 1 and 3, measurements are taken with the multipoint measurement mode, which permits rotation of the shaft to a desired location using turning gear, without taking readings along the way. Once rotated, the shaft is relaxed into its natural position so a reading can be taken. Multipoint mode achieves alignment readings without the forces from noncontinuous rotation influencing alignment results.

If excessive vibration from nearby equipment is present, it is necessary to take more samples during each multipoint reading in order to increase the averaging and mitigate possible erroneous information.

0405-ludeca4

Fig. 4. Coupling 3, between the gearbox and booster pump

Pass mode. Coupling 2 provides a challenge for most laser shaft alignment tools. The spool piece is removed during the alignment process. Rotating both coupling halves simultaneously is usually impossible. Pass mode is used to combat this challenge. When measuring with pass mode, the laser is simply rotated past the receiver at least five times over at least 70 degrees of rotation to complete alignment readings automatically.

Once misalignment readings have been taken at all couplings, an overall picture of the “as found” alignment is produced, as shown in Fig. 5.

Machine alignment
One goal during the alignment process is to minimize movement and still reach the alignment objective. Once the “as found” picture is in view, the smallest possible move or optimal move can be calculated. By doing so, the risk of becoming bolt-bound or base-bound (having to lower a machine with no shims under the feet) is reduced.

0405-ludeca5

Fig. 5. “As found” alignment condition

Becoming bolt-bound is one of the most common problems during machine train alignment. When the stationary machine in a train is angled on its base, the other machines in the train need to be aligned to this angle. When moving any given machine in the train, the movements required to achieve tolerances may not be met because the move required is greater than the space remaining between the bolts and the bolt holes. This obstacle then requires additional moves to achieve alignment tolerances, or other less-desirable alternatives, such as enlarging the anchor bolt holes in the feet.

To combat a bolt-bound condition, it is vital to look at the overall picture and explore the various move options. In the example of a pump-gearbox-motor machine train, a quick glance would assign the gearbox as stationary and the pump and motor as moveable. What if the alignment cannot be completed with this configuration? Other alignment options must be explored.

The best option is the static foot function available in some laser alignment systems. This feature permits viewing alignment conditions throughout the machine train while choosing different individual pairs of stationary feet rather than only entire static machines. This allows the user to find a solution with the smallest possible move for the bolt-bound machine.

 

0405-ludeca6

Fig. 6. “As left” alignment condition

Live move mode.
In this example, the alignment was performed designating the turbine as the stationary machine. Movement of machinery commenced at the main feed pump, continuing with the gearbox and then the booster pump. The live move mode, which monitors each piece of equipment while it is moved, informs the user when tolerances are met. Because the move is monitored at each pair of feet, machinery is moved without guesswork, and the chances of over-shooting the required correction are reduced.

 

Target specification computation
The alignment is considered complete when all equipment is within tolerance while incorporating target specifications. Target specifications are deliberate values of offset and angularity that the machines are misaligned to in the nonrunning condition to compensate for expected changes in the alignment that will occur when the machines are made to run and are put under load, usually due to thermal growth or dynamic load shifts. All computations are done in the alignment computer, eliminating the need for cumbersome calculations on graph paper.

“As left” readings
After each piece of equipment is moved into tolerance, a new set of readings should be taken at each coupling. In this case, each coupling was within the suggested alignment tolerances, while incorporating targets (see Fig. 6). The appearance of the smile symbol ensured that the speed-related tolerances were met at each individual coupling.

There are a myriad of machine train configurations for every possible application. Machine trains are often the lifeblood of a plant or mill. Their alignment is crucial due to the cost of downtime, cost of the equipment, and their criticality. Using a versatile laser alignment tool will reduce frustration, save time, and help accomplish the original goal of aligning a machine train within specified tolerances. MT


Information supplied by Irene Hamernick, Ludeca, Inc., 1425 NW 88th Ave., Miami, FL 33172; (305) 591-8935

 

Continue Reading →

286

6:00 am
April 1, 2005
Print Friendly

Phishing and Pharming: A guide to avoid getting scammed online

You just got an urgent e-mail from your credit card company or your bank requesting you to verify your log in or user name and password. The e-mail says it is from accounts@citibank.com or auction@ebay.com or payments@ paypal.com.

Hopefully by now you know that no trusted financial institution will ever e-mail you to request your user name and password or your mother’s maiden name. The best thing you can do is to simply delete these phony messages. This technique of scamming people with fake e-mail is known as phishing. The name is derived from using the e-mail as bait and if you (the phish) bite you are reeled in and lured to provide personal details that can leave your finances vulnerable.

If phishing was not bad enough, a new scam called pharming is so sneaky and potential damaging that you must educate yourself before you enter any financial data online ever again.

Pharmers hijack domain name servers (DNS) and route you to a fake look-a-like site that requests your log in and password. For example, you type www.paypal.com into your Internet browser. The browser address block shows www.paypal.com but what you do not know is that some clever hacker has hijacked PayPal’s domain name server. Just watching the address bar on your Internet browser will not be enough to know if your site has been hijacked. The URL that is displayed and the look-a-like financial site will appear normal.

What should you do?
Besides running an up-to-date antivirus program and strong firewall, a little knowledge can go a long way.

Most financial sites run on secure servers (look for the closed lock icon on the bottom of your Internet browser) so if you want to visit www.paypal.com type https://www.paypal.com instead. The https indicates a secure server and by typing it you force the browser to go only to an SSL-enabled version of the Web site. If the PayPal site has been hijacked, your browser should issue a pop-up box alerting you that the site SSL certificate does not match the URL you typed. You, being very observant (and hopefully slightly paranoid), do not accept and log off your attempt to visit the hijacked site. Use the telephone to call and alert the financial company.

Secure sites must have a digital certificate issued by a trusted third party source such as Verisign or Thawte and, to date, no widespread security problems have come from this side of Web security.

I found advice on CNET.com to make sure that your Web browser properly validates SSL certificates. Set the following options in Internet Explorer 6 (users of other browsers will find comparable settings somewhere in their browser configurations):

Tools > Internet Options
Advanced tab
Under the Security section, make sure these options are checked:
• Check for publisher’s certificate revocation
• Check for server certificate revocation
• Use SSL 3.0
• Warn about invalid site certificates

Make sure that the option “Use SSL 2.0” is not checked because there are problems with the SSL 2.0 protocol which can make it possible for a pharmer to defeat SSL certificate verification.

Please be safe out there in cyberspace.

Terrence O’Hanlon, CMRP is the publisher of Reliabilityweb.com. He is the director of strategic alliances for the Society for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals (SMRP). He is also the event manager for CMMS-2005, The Computerized Maintenance Management Summit on July 26-29, 2005 in Indianapolis, IN

Internet Tip: Call me

If you get enough of your friends and family to download Skype.com, a free Internet-based telephone-like service, you may never have to pay for telephone services again.

Mark Hill of Companion Products sent me the Skype.com link and I have been slashing my phone bill ever since. You can even make calls to people who are not in the Skype.com network for super low rates.

You do need a computer with a microphone and headset or a USB phone to make this service work. It works on Windows, Linux, Apple OS, and Pocket PC devices.

Please visit www.skype.com to download a copy and give me a call.

New Job Site

ReliabilityResumes.com offers a free job posting for positions that seek maintenance and reliability professionals. The site offers a job description summary and requires that the detailed job description be posted at the employer’s Web site and a link is provided for job seekers to learn more.

Additional links are provided to larger job posting sites such as Monster.com (of Super Bowl fame) and Yahoo! Hotjobs.com. The site even offers resources for making sure that job seekers’ resumes represent them in the most professional light.

You can impress your boss or enhance your job search by sitting for the Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional (CMRP) exam offered by SMRP. Earning CMRP certification demonstrates that you have the knowledge and more importantly the experience to be a reliability leader.

Continue Reading →

16746

6:00 am
April 1, 2005
Print Friendly

Selecting the Right Key Performance Indicators

An effective set of interlocking indicators provides feedback to individuals, groups, and the enterprise, directing the behavior of all.

Measures of performance have been used by management for centuries to review current operational capabilities. Such measures have been used to assess both departmental and corporate performance, as well as trend performance achieved against plan.

In many industrial facilities, these measurements are related to safety (number of incidents), environmental (number of releases), costs (percentage of departmental budgets used), and production (comparison of actual vs targeted production output). These measures are needed in order to determine not only if resources and costs have been managed for the production achieved, but also whether the assets or plant remain in good health. Clearly, these measures provide assurance that asset policies in place today do not limit capabilities for tomorrow.

In order to define a complete set of performance measures, companies must ensure that simple, workable measures are in place. The real challenge is not only to select those indicators that satisfy budgetary goals, but also to build the activities needed to meet the levels of asset performance required to meet strategic goals.

Selecting the right measures is vital for effectiveness. Even more importantly, the metrics must be built into a performance measurement system that allows individuals and groups to understand how their behaviors and activities are fulfilling the overall corporate goals.

Business challenge
When built into management processes, performance metrics become a system which will generate organizational behaviors that comply with what is measured, i.e., “you are what you measure.” Hence, this will encourage behaviors which help present a good score for the individual or for the department.

This may or may not, however, help to achieve strategic goals. Therefore, when building performance metrics, we must begin with the end result in mind. We need to focus on what we want as outcomes of our work processes. This presents a dilemma, as we do not work as a set of isolated departments, but in collaboration with others. Processes that begin with an individual are continued or completed by others. So, how do we effectively measure outcomes when a single individual or group is not controlling all the key steps?

Several basic frameworks have been proposed to build intelligent metrics that help form sets of composite measures to simplify this problem. For example, the SMART (see accompanying section “Building and Testing Performance Indicators”) test is frequently used to provide a quick reference to determine the quality of a particular performance metric. But these do not, however, address how the measures will interact to stimulate an effective network of key processes. How can individuals see what the effects of their improvements are, if these get lost in the noise of company management reports?

One problem is that business processes are segmented, and many departments are collecting silos of information that produce metrics used only for the sake of measurement. These silos then reinforce divergent opinions of company performance and limit a common understanding of what new behaviors are needed. So, a major factor in implementing performance measurement is changing the way performance is measured and reported and how people view success within their own processes.

For many organizations, this is “where the rubber hits the road:” How can we build realistic, practical metrics which drive change? How can we articulate company objectives through enterprise-wide metrics in an integrated measurement system?

Asset performance metrics
An asset performance management (APM) initiative is comprised of business processes, workflows, and data capture that enable rigorous analysis to help define strategies based on best practices, plant history, and fact-based decision support.

An effective initiative must include three phases: Strategize, Execute, and Evaluate (SEE). All companies engage in some form of activities in the Execute phase, such as performing maintenance, inspections, and monitoring. However, most companies neglect the Strategize and Evaluate phases, where most of the real value of the work execution can be realized. In the Strategize and Evaluate phases, successful companies will not only perform analysis to determine appropriate asset strategies, but also use the information generated by the Execution phase to reevaluate their asset strategies and redefine how they do manage their assets and process risks.

As with many management issues, the key to building a set of performance metrics is to do it in stages, as noted in the accompanying section “Building and Testing Performance Indicators.” Clear corporate goals are important at this point, otherwise vague objectives will create impractical perspectives and metrics. Consider also current asset performance indicators: What is currently measured? How are these aligned with company objectives? For many, this lack of connectivity causes dissatisfaction with management reports and criticism of managers who “manage by the numbers.”

By contrast, well-organized metrics and scorecards provide operational measures that have clear cause-and-effect relationships with the desired outcomes. Each of these outcomes will build toward the goals of the perspective. And these metrics, if well chosen, will be the catalysts for change, providing warning signals to identify ineffective or failed asset performance strategies.

The best way to build this relationship is to “map” front-line activities all the way up to corporate goals. For many organizations undergoing strategic change, this may involve reorientation around new customer or supplier perspectives (company stakeholders). For others, building in customer perspective already may have occurred, but the linkages to external (or internal) stakeholder metrics may have been lost since the change program was initiated.

Four tactical perspectives
The accompanying “Performance Indicators for Managing Risk and Improving Profitabilitychart illustrates a high-level map developed for a chemical company using operational excellence goals of managing risks and improving profitability. From this strategic goal, perspectives have been defined which are specific to four functions: Operations, Reliability, Work Management, and Safety and Environmental.

Within these perspectives, each discipline can take charge of factors under its control by choosing the right metrics to measure its progress toward achieving the collective goal. At this stage, metrics should be reviewed to determine which will most effectively measure the desired outcomes. One question to consider is “at what stage it is reasonable to expect the metric to be a meaningful measure of performance?” Clearly some measures may not be effective if the work processes that generate their outcomes are still being built and learned.

So, for this example, the Operations objectives are to focus on delivering reduced operating costs, and managing the risks inherent in the process and in operational activities, while maximizing methanol output.

In the Safety and Environmental perspective, the focus is on providing the systems, procedures, and training which build operational awareness, skills, functional systems and capabilities to prevent, manage, and eliminate safety and environmental incidents.

And in the Work Management perspective, the focus is on efficiently completing maintenance work while minimizing the potential for future breakdowns and restoring assets to their operating condition.

Finally, for the Reliability perspective, the focus is to build the analytics and skills required to increase and improve plant uptime while preserving the integrity and life of plant assets.

From each of these perspectives, tactical metrics can be set to stimulate new outcomes, build new processes, and build skill development and learning—all with clear links to the goals of each individual perspective. Now the value of performance improvements can be easily seen and used to drive changes in functional behaviors and functional interactions.

Scorecards and performance reporting
With the perspectives aligned to corporate goals, key performance indicators (KPIs) can be organized into scorecards using well-considered metrics. KPIs can be chosen that directly achieve individual goals or fulfill shared objectives needed to maximize operating performance, such as asset availability, asset integrity, optimal process capability, or reduced utility consumption.

Metrics that build upon individual perspective goals need to be mapped from the lower-level operational measure to higher-level strategic measures. For example, within the Operations perspective, a strategic KPI candidate could be Plant Uptime. Obviously, this cannot be achieved by operations personnel alone or through a single new activity or the application of a new skill. But the lower operational KPIs of Reduced Startup Time and Increased Running Time at Optimal Output may be more under their control. Improvements in this metric will result in more product produced for the available hours in the operating period.

But if the plant is not available, operations staff will be limited. This is where the visibility and ownership of shared KPIs will come into play. Here, tactical KPIs of Maintenance Compliance and skill/learning development of Defining/Measuring Deterioration Mechanisms will need to be adopted. The compliance metric will ensure that effective maintenance is executed in a timely manner before extensive collateral damage has occurred. And, once the deterioration mechanisms are clearly understood, they can be monitored and interpreted by reliability, operations, and maintenance to reduce impact on production hours and save maintenance resources through timely planning.

From these integrated metrics, we now have to face the challenge of how to collect the data in a systematic manner and on a reasonably routine basis. Asset performance management systems provide transaction engines but often they leave many KPIs uncollected. This leaves manual processes to fill the gap, resulting in missing data records and inadequate information since, quite often, there is no time between scheduled work to record what has occurred. But if details are not recorded, later analysis is frustrated by poor or limited recorded information in the transactions and has to rely on less-reliable memories from craftsmen and contractors.

Solutions are needed here to pull basic data from enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and supplement these with post-event information. Often, however, there are too many individual work items to get all of the details around each event, so facts should be built for the significant events from which asset performance insights can be evaluated.

As direct costs associated with events are often a fraction of production losses (lost profit opportunities), production incidents need to be mapped to their corporate impact instead of providing only measures of man-hours expended. A production incident tracking system is vital so these events can be tied to systematic assessments of actual and potential losses. Figure 1 shows how maintenance measures as well as production losses can be combined to give a full measure of the business impact of events over time.

Routine reporting and automation of the KPIs provides management, reliability engineers, or asset performance analysts with the collective data. Then less time is spent collecting and more time is spent applying the data to achieve the benefits required for business success.

However, without a central location to collect, store, and report KPI data, it can be extremely difficult to manage metrics unified around a strategy map. The data must be accurate, trustworthy, and timely to make beneficial contribution to a site’s or a company’s strategies aimed at asset performance improvement. So, having a system that has all the data you need in one central location is important.

As shown in Fig. 2, using a “dashboard” approach with dial gauges and graphical trends gives highly visible, visual feedback to groups and individuals on their operational and strategic performance achieved. These gauges appear in user Web-based home pages and graphic alerts can be auto-generated when changes in performance occur, signaling either successful improvements or failures of existing asset strategies.

Practical application
A petrochemical facility with approximately 50,000 assets employed had rigid preventive maintenance (PM) and predictive maintenance (PdM) programs in place. A primary corporate objective was to achieve a minimum return on net assets (RONA) of 12 percent, but the company had floundered around the 8 percent mark for the past few years. Preventable failures and lost production items were still prevalent.

The company initiated a focus on reliability to help achieve the expected RONA. A PM program was set up by functional location and scheduled in its maintenance management system. Predictive maintenance items such as vibration data collection and analysis, infrared switchgear inspections, ultrasonic thickness measurements, and oil sampling and analysis were routinely performed. The facility developed subject matter experts and established new work programs.

As a result, machine availability increased from poor earlier performance to between middle to top tier performance. However, critical machine failure still occurred randomly and unexpectedly. Production targets were affected, and RONA targets were still not achieved. Even though subject matter experts were in place and a focus on implementing preventive and predictive maintenance programs was occurring, unexpected failures were still affecting reliability and impacting production targets.

(A common problem with mature maintenance programs can be that they may not have been designed correctly, and that, on average, between 40 and 60 percent of the PM tasks typically serve very little purpose. This poses a significant issue for improving maintenance performance since no amount of perfection in planning and scheduling will make up for the inefficiencies of the maintenance program itself. Achieving 100 percent compliance with an initiative that is 50 percent useful and 50 percent wasteful is not good asset performance management.)

In spite of their efforts, preventable failures were still occurring at this facility. The production manager was given the primary responsibility to achieve the 12 percent RONA. In order to achieve this goal, she quickly realized that this must involve interdepartmental cooperation. To achieve that end result, she needed all departments to buy in to the goal and make everyone else accountable

as well. Within months, and after much discussion and many presentations to department heads, the KPIs began to show up on each department manager’s scorecard.

Building an asset performance culture
With accountability comes responsibility, and in this case, the responsibility to achieve the corporate objective. Alignment processes were in full swing. A strategy was developed that employed KPIs to manage the effectiveness of the existing PM and PdM strategies. Knowing when to perform the PM and when and what PdM data to routinely capture for predictive maintenance is a must in order to be effective and eliminate the preventable failures that are occurring. If RONA was a key corporate objective, then howcould this company align their PM strategies to achieve the target? How can KPIs be used in this effort?

This company decided to incorporate an asset performance management strategy by first defining which assets were critical to achieving production targets. It decided to first focus on those efforts that had a business impact and were keeping the plant from achieving a 12 percent RONA. Only 4000 assets (8 percent of the total) were identified, including rotating, fixed, electrical, and instrumentation.

After the highly critical assets were identified, specific PM and PdM schedules were put in place, rather than the typical “once-per-month” philosophy that was previously employed. KPIs were aligned in an effort to meet the corporate objective and included items such as the number of failures on highly critical equipment, and percentage of highly critical equipment with optimized PM study completed.

As you can see, these are not the typical metrics that many companies employ. These metrics were designed to focus on the 4000 highly critical assets that were preventing the achievement of 12 percent RONA. The spotlight had now shifted from carrying out PM and PdM efforts on all 50,000 assets to the 4000 highly critical assets. Resources were aligned to employ methodologies to optimize PM plans for each of the critical assets.

When failures occurred in the facility on noncritical assets, significantly less attention was given to those events. Operators, maintenance technicians, process engineers, and management were refocusing their resource allocations on the 4000 highly critical assets. KPIs dictated which assets would receive the most focus based on consequence and impact of failure. This practical, easy-to-implement strategy, using KPIs, led to achievement of the desired 12 percent RONA.

Asset performance management benefits
Every organization needs a strategy for effective metrics mapped to corporate objectives in an asset performance management system that can track, trend, and analyze asset information for better business decision making. Having data in one central location and detailing asset events to promote easy querying and reporting is required.

For this company, the APM system promoted:

• A closed loop process of defining strategies, executing the performance of those strategies, and evaluating failed assets in order to determine if the initial strategy was ineffective and required change

• Use of a central repository for all technical and detailed asset event data

• Use of KPIs to measure progress and reinforce positive behaviors

• Elimination of departmental barriers (everyone had a common objective driven by corporate management)

• Use of statistical tools to evaluate asset performance and understand past failures and successes

• Delivery of corporate value (the RONA goal was achieved)

In this case, the benefits of this strategy included a clear understanding of a common goal, or an objective, and alignment of strategies and resources. The 12 percent RONA was now not just some corporate objective; it had real meaning to the site’s employees. Further, when targets were not met, a process was put in place to analyze the results and determine if the strategies for a specific asset needed to be changed. A continuous, closed loop business process was now in place.

KPIs in APM workflow
When KPIs are used in an APM workflow, an interface exists between the APM system and the maintenance management system. Data is automatically flowing between the two systems, generating key performance indicators. In one specific example for a pump (PMP-101), the strategy employed takes the tasks developed in the APM system and automatically enters them into the maintenance management system.

Typically, they are scheduled as work orders. In this workflow, all work order data is captured and sent to the APM system and a detailed data capture is performed regarding any event associated with PMP-101. This data is used to routinely capture KPIs that can be used as a set of criteria to automatically notify the user that an analysis is required. In the example, this would probably occur when a highly critical asset experienced a failure. The implementation of the APM system made the initiative much easier to achieve and adjustment of strategies simpler to accomplish.

SEE for clarity
When organizations are given a framework to monitor asset performance and empowered with a strategy review process, improvements in asset performance occur and production process constraints wither away. Benchmark levels of performance are achieved, and what were formerly regarded as “ideal” levels of production are regularly achieved.

Effective scorecards are a powerful catalyst for making the need for change visible and the opportunity for improvement clear. Alone, the opportunity is a powerful motivator. But harnessing that power with an APM system is essential to prevent the process from becoming fragmented with multiple conflicting improvements, causing confusion and instability.

An APM platform focused on reinforcing the cycle of Strategize-Execute-Evaluate (SEE) brings clarity and structure to the situation. An asset performance culture begins with defining or refining asset strategies (the Strategize phase), which requires an understanding of the production requirements, processes hazards, plant configuration, and the current organizational capabilities.

The Execute phase should capitalize on the information gathered when the asset strategies are applied and failures and successes occur. With an effective APM system, observations made by individuals in the Execute phase can be recorded and shared with various departments, offering new insights into how potential failures can be detected and prevented earlier.

With this culture in place, metrics and scorecards can progressively reveal opportunities for improvement in the Evaluate phase. Here the right metrics and scorecards replace the “blame culture” that surfaces in many situations where low-grade performance is revealed. With the right culture, following the cause-effect relationships in the strategy map can determine when and where systemic causes are being introduced and what improvements can be made.

These improvements can then cycle back to the Strategize phase where the strategies can be re-assessed to make effective holistic improvements to the asset configuration, the way failures are managed and mitigated, the organization’s skills and capabilities, or the performance measurement system itself.

Anthony McNeeney is a senior APM consultant for the Asset Performance Management Consulting Group at Meridium, 10 S. Jefferson St., Roanoke, VA 24011, provider of asset performance management solutions; (540) 344-9205

BUILDING AND TESTING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

As with many management issues, it is often best to build a solution in stages. Suggested stages for performance indicators are:
1. Define the links between corporate goals and major operational perspectives.
2. Map these strategic links to required processes in each perspective area.
3. Define a set of near-term and medium-term metrics which drive the new outcomes in each perspective.
4. Define the gaps and dependencies across the organization which will need to be bridged to result in corporate success.
5. Implement the metrics as individual and group scorecards and monitor to secure the strategic results.

Use the SMART test

S = Specific: clear and focused to avoid misinterpretation.
M = Measurable: can be quantified and compared to other data.
A = Attainable: achievable, reasonable, and credible under conditions expected.
R = Realistic: fits into the organization’s constraints and is cost effective.
T = Timely: doable within the time frame given.

Key performance indicators should be trendable, observable, reliable, measurable, and specific.

back to article

PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR MANAGING RISK AND IMPROVING PROFITABILITY

 

High level goal: Manage Risk and Improve Profitability of Chemical Plant

Operations Perspective

Reliability Perspective

Work Management
Perspective

Safety and Environmental
Perspective

Goals: Reduce operating costs and risks; maximize output

Goals: Maximize uptime; preserve plant and asset integrity

Goals: Minimize corrective work; restore asset condition

Goals: Controlled, audited environmental; safe, audited operational capabilities

Strategic KPI
• Plant availability
• Number LPO events
• Time operatingoutside deterioration
limits, percent
• Plant uptime, percent
• Production targetcompliance

Strategic KPI
• Plant availability
• Proactive work
orders, percent
• Emergency work
orders on high critical
systems, percent
• Significant
deterioration
mechanisms
improvements
• Inspection compliance
• Protective device
schedule compliance
• Quantified reliability
target, number
• Predictive
maintenance
compliance

Strategic KPI
• Planning compliance
• Work order complete
(within 20 percent
of planned costs)
• Proactive work orders, percent
• Scheduling compliance
• Assessments of work order complete,
number
• Quantified availability
targets, number

Strategic KPI
• Incident rate
• Safety performance index
• PHA/reviews completed, number
• PSM compliance audits, number
• Significant environmental aspects defined/quantified, number

Operational KPI
• Process availability
variance
• Utility variance
• Product transfer
indicator
• Quality limit
excursions, number
• Actual counter
measures, number
• Startup indicators
• Shutdown indicators
• Offspec product
• Scrap value
• Inventory

Operational KPI
• MTBF by equipment
type, area
• MTBR by equipment
type, area
• MTBM by equipment
type, area
• MTBF growth
• Cumulative
nonavailability of
critical assets
• Unscheduled
maintenance events,
number
• Completed work
order records on
significant failures,
number
• Bad actor count
• Current mechanical
availability
• Mechanical availability trend

Operational KPI
• Emergency work
orders, percent
• Reactive work
orders, percent
• Backlog work
orders, number
• Overtime hours,
percent
• Work orders
planned, number
• Cumulative
maintenance costs
for standing order
• Average direct cost
per maintenance event
• Work orders
scheduled, number
• Rework, percent
• Closed work orders
within 2 days of
schedule, percent

Operational KPI
• Outstanding items
from monthly safety
inspection report,
number
• E&S A incidents,
number
• E&S B incidents,
number
• E&S C incidents,
number
• Total days lost days
due to injury
• PHA action items

back to article

0405meridiumfig1

Fig. 1. Production incident measurement report tracks production and maintenance costs.

back to article

Continue Reading →

Navigation