Archive | January, 2008


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

Fundamental Solutions


Insulated Hose Promotes Process Efficiency

Flexaust Flex-Vest® Insulated Hose features 1” fiberglass insulation with R-value=4 sandwiched between a doubleply silicone coated fiber-glass fabric inside layer, reinforced with a spring steel wire helix, and an outer layer of singleply neoprene coated polyester fabric hose, also reinforced with a spring steel wire helix. Keeping extreme temperatures inside with minimal loss, this flexible hose operates from -65 F to 550 F. This energy-saving product is suited for air handling applications at low positive or negative pressures and conforms to UL-94.

Warsaw, IN

0108_fund_shaftShaft-Sealing Solutions Optimize Lube Retention

SKF® low-friction Waveseal® shaft-sealing solutions feature a specially molded lip to form a sinusoidal or wave pattern around the shaft surface. This unique pattern enables lubricant to be pumped back to the bearing for optimized lubricant retention while pushing dirt away from the lip/shaft surface (regardless which way the shaft is turning) to protect against contamination. Seals with a Waveseal sealing lip are suitable for many applications, including gearboxes, speed reducers, transmissions, motors, drive systems and pumps, among others.

Kulpsville, PA

0108_fund_thermoTotal IR Thermometer Solutions

Fluke has announced availability of the Fluke 566 and 568 Thermometers featuring broad infrared (IR) temperature measurement functionality, an on-screen menu system and a dot-matrix display. Both models combine contact and non-contact temperature measurement capability in one single, easy-touse tool, providing a total and convenient temperature measurement solution for industrial, electrical and maintenance professionals working in a wide variety of inspection applications. Their K-type thermocouple bead probes let users take contact measurements immediately.

Fluke Corporation
Everett, WA

Continue Reading →


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

Part II: Collaborative Design – Building Cultures of Reliability-In-Action

Based on the use of a learning exercise over almost two decades, the first article in this series (pgs. 32-37, MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY, December 2007) described how individuals tend to subtly side-step discussing costly errors and mistakes in their organizations.

Practice makes perfect when it comes to harnessing the “tools” that help optimize equipment and human performance.

In the first installment of this series, the author discussed the underlying assumptions of cultures-in-action and how human reasoning and resulting decisions impact performance and reliability. This month, Dr. Becker discusses how functional Collaborative Design tools contribute to creating a culture-of-reliability.

Not surprisingly, at first blush, many participants have been uncomfortable with what this learning exercise has revealed. Everyone likes to believe that they “walk the talk.” Their experiences illustrate that they believe healthy cultures foster alignment among organizational goals, processes and peoples’ behavior and personal values; very noble goals. However, the learning exercise asks people to dig below what is discussable and to make a distinction between what is espoused and what is actually produced in action. The level of alignment typically highlights compliance to goals rather than commitment, and how that compliance impacts decision-making and costs.

When it comes to equipment and business processes, decisions often are supported by rigorous data collection, including leading and lagging key performance indicators (KPIs) like return on investment (ROI) or schedule compliance. Yet, organizations typically do not apply the same data collection rigor to decision-making-in-action. Instead, as decisions are examined and accountability is invoked, people can fall into subtle defensive patterns in an effort to cope with systemic error and performance interdependencies in hopes of not being seen as incompetent or lacking team skills. The fear of being unfairly judged leads to distrust. These defensive patterns can limit the implementation of changes in equipment and business processes and feed a self-fulfilling fad loop. Based on their own illustrations, participants conclude that the full range of business value is restricted according to the level of discussability and trust.

Collaborative design
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines reliability as “suitable or fit to be relied on: trustworthy.” For anyone working in a process-oriented industry, reliability is a key word in the Holy Grail of performance. Equipment and human decision-making form a complex performance platform that is essential to producing a competitive product. That’s why collaboration is so important.

At the close of the referenced learning exercise, someone (either participant or leader) will ask how to alter the self-fulfilling loop of distrust we have uncovered— and how to do it without continuing the same old pattern of espousing continuous learning, collaboration, accountability etc. It’s a difficult question to answer; if it weren’t, participants would already be implementing the answer in their organizations.

Working over the past 18 years with people’s internal dialogues, (i.e. what they think, but don’t necessarily say), I have collaboratively field-engineered a compact set of communication-based tools that I have come to call “Collaborative Design.” The vision of Collaborative Design is to maximize organizational performance while simultaneously enhancing human dignity. These tools productively expand discussability and measure the business impact of doing so. Their fundamental premise is based on invitation as a way to create psychological safety for discussing issues.

Like any tool, Collaborative Design skill application is learned through practice. Great golfers, musicians, tennis players and executives, for example, understand the importance of repeatable processes for improving one’s swing, sound, ground stroke or decision-making process. Collaborative Design is no different, except with one distinction—the current decision-making culture is unconsciously put in place to prevent the expansion of discussability, which is the very goal of Collaborative Design.

Collaborative design performance criteria
Collaborative Design is driven by a set of functional tools. Functional tools are any set of actionable tools with these performance criteria:

  • Defineable. A clear definition and purpose exists and can be verified in action.
  • Measureable. Any tool or cluster of tools can be assessed for its business impact.
  • Integratable. Any tool or cluster of tools can be taught and applied in the field and used with other applications.
  • Repeatable. Any tool or cluster of tools can be applied over and over with the same end result; skill improves.
  • Sustainable. Any tool or cluster of tools endures over time.
  • Self-correcting. Any tool or cluster of tools will endure because unintended consequences are uncovered.
  • Ethical. Given their self-correcting nature, any tool or cluster of tools is non-manipulative, maintaining business value and human dignity.

0108_collabdesign_fig1As noted in Fig. 1, Collaborative Design’s basic tool set is composed of the following six functional tools:

  1. Continuous Invitation—A tool for balancing decisionmaking control
  2. The Source of Human Action—A tool that productively accesses what people are thinking but not necessarily saying
  3. Private to Public—A tool for stating private thoughts, while minimizing negative reactions
  4. Stating a Bind—A tool for resolving legitimate but competing objectives
  5. Active Inquiry—A tool for understanding how others characterize a problem
  6. Field Testing—A quality assurance tool for measuring the business impact of Collaborative Design or any other change tool

Five of the six tools are composed of two parts: a conceptual framework and an actionable model. Field Testing is the application that measures the business impact and quality of tool application.

There are three fundamental assumptions of Collaborative Design. Individuals seek to deepen their personal reflection skills by: 1) expanding their acceptance of their own and others’ mistakes; 2) committing to practice-inaction; and 3) maximizing performance.

Although it would go beyond the scope of this article to discuss all of the tools, a basic introduction into Invitation will help the reader begin to understand Collaborative Design and the premises upon which it rests.

Continuous invitation
Invitation is the threshold by which all the other tools are accessed. It sets up informed choice, mutual control and trust. The features of Continuous Invitation are as follows:

  • Its business impact is felt when the tool is competently applied in daily business.
  • It is most powerful when used with the other Collaborative Design tools.
  • It productively helps uncover what is difficult to discuss or undiscussable.
  • It builds true commitment to business objectives, not compliance.
  • Like any tool, competence is built through practice.
  • Although counter-intuitive, the right to decline exists. This provides mutual control, hence balancing power

0108_collabdesign_tab1Field testing has consistently revealed that even when invitations were partly created, invitees were more likely to sincerely commit to the decision at hand because they experienced mutual control deep into their bones. When invitation was practiced, management found it could make collaborative decisions quickly and build trust rapidly. Furthermore, once trust was established, management found it could make command and control decisions as well, with few unintended consequences. Because discussability was expanded, team members better understood managerial time and performance pressures.

As noted in Table I, invitation is composed of four domains:

The production script shown in Table II was developed by field testing different configurations in action. Ultimately, the configuration reporting the fewest negative consequences was crafted into an action tool. Like any tool, by using it, practitioners develop their own style through artful application.

Invitation matched with active inquiry doesn’t exclude other decision-making models. For example, command and control models are appropriate in times of crisis. However, without inquiry tools for checking decision, command and control can create unintended consequences. For example, in the worst case, one engineer described being ordered to stand by during a startup and before he could explain that the pump had no oil in it, he was ordered to do as he was told. “I was so angry they would not listen,” he remembered. “I didn’t say a word; the turbine rolled and the pump fried.” Cost of the repair? About $250k.

0108_collabdesign_tab2Early users of the tool often confuse invitation with giving up their rights as a manager. “What if they decline my invitation,” they ask. If an invitation is declined, it means the tool is working. You know where you stand on an issue. Declining often means that the invitee is not in a position, typically emotionally, to discuss a topic. Invitation provides a platform for exploring options, even when someone declines. The inability to discuss an issue does not prevent the manager from ultimately taking unilateral action. The first explicit effort, however, is to make decisions collaboratively.

A simple rule (and important rule) is to NOT use invitation if you are NOT extending a true invitation. If acting unilaterally, explain why. In addition, be ready for the unintended consequences of unilateral control—public acceptance, private resistance and decision-making dependence on the manager; little true accountability.

Making it work
A culture-of-reliability is defined as the collective ability to detect and correct performance gaps at ever-increasing rates of speed and precision across the organization’s industrial and business processes, as well as the human decision-making system in which the industrial and business processes are embedded. If any one of these three interdependent performance systems is diminished, the ability to maintain reliable, sustainable performance is at risk.

It is not uncommon for organizations to focus change efforts on their industrial and business processes, product innovation etc. and overlook the human decision-making process that rests under all of them. Taking a team-building class or understanding your leadership style is not enough. At its deepest level, human reasoning and its resulting decision- making is the root cause of equipment and process reliability. Collaborative Design optimizes equipment and human performance by productively uncovering hidden bottlenecks to performance and building true commitment to increasing the detection and correction of mistakes and errors at ever-increasing rates of speed and precision.

Coming in Part III
In the final segment of this article series, a non-traditional process for implementing Collaborative Design will be discussed. To productively change and sustain a cultureof- reliability requires not letting the old culture unilaterally define what changes are acceptable and, at the same time, not using the same old set of values to invoke the change. MT

Brian Becker is a senior project manager with Reliability Management Group (RMG), a Minneapolis-based consulting firm. With 27 years of business experience, he has been both a consultant and a manager. Becker holds a Harvard doctorate with a management focus. For more information, e-mail:

Continue Reading →


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

Communications: Partnering With Management


Ken Bannister, Contributing Editor

Many of the pyramidal corporate management structures favored up to the 1990s have virtually all been closeted in favor of the lean, flat organizational tree, in which executive and operational management staff often take on symbiotic roles.

Within these downsized, ‘flatter’ management organizations, however, there remain hierarchical levels of accountability and responsibility. For example, in today’s typical organization the maintainer might report to either a maintenance or production supervisor, who, in turn, may report to a dual-role maintenance/production manager, who may report to the plant manager, who could report to the board of directors, who, in turn, reports to its corporate shareholders. Add profit sharing to the mix and the circle is complete when the maintainer is also a shareholder. In this new order, each and every corporate employee is charged with a degree of responsibility and accountability, to be defined within their new job description.

Within the maintenance function, management’s responsibility is two-fold: first, to understand and communicate the business needs of the corporation to the maintenance fraternity; and second, to provide the maintenance department with a set of structured management systems, processes and integrated business/department goals that allow maintenance to perform and achieve in a productive, proactive manner. When a maintenance department is able to work with a management team that delivers on its responsibilities and understands the integral nature of the maintenance function, it is more likely to accept change, and tangibly measure, quantify (probably for the first time ever) and improve upon its corporate goals. How is this achieved?

Understanding prompts communication
A manager’s business perspective is very different to that of a maintainer. Whereas a maintainer will usually only plan (if at all) for daily/weekly activities, and is more likely to be involved in work at a detailed or ‘micro’ level, an executive manager’s perspective is more likely to take on a macro approach, requiring planning in the three- to five-year range, viewing business from a 60,000 ft. perspective. An operations or middle manager’s responsibility is to bridge the gap between the micro and macro, providing logistical planning in the monthly to yearly time frame. Understanding each other’s differing needs and requirements is key to harmonization and communication within the corporation. This is achieved through a number of initiatives:

Aligned Vision…
The maintenance department partners with management to chart out a departmental vision that clearly defines and states to all other departments its commitment to them and the corporation as a whole. The maintenance vision is easily crafted using the corporate vision statements as templates, ensuring cohesion and alignment with other departments and the corporation.

Corporate-wide Programs…
The maintenance department aligns its business methods and processes to comply with such corporate-wide initiatives as quality assurance ISO 9000/QS 9000 or environmental ISO 14,000. Intradepartmental collaboration on such initiatives assures positive change and agreement on the way maintenance is managed and performed.

Business Planning…
Building a maintenance business plan forces maintenance to be proactive, to attain insight on corporate needs, to achieve input toward the production schedule, to receive new initiative funding and to develop and aspire to milestone achievements. Again, business planning is a collaborative maintenance department/management team exercise.

Goals and Objectives…
These elements must be achievable and reflect short-term, mid-term and long-term needs and requirements of both the department and the corporation. Determining goals and objectives allows the maintenance department and management to work together as a team and understand each other’s unique business perspective. Goals and objectives represent tangible, quantifiable deliverables that signify program success and achievement.

Communicating effectively and facilitating management’s needs and requirements will likely afford the maintenance department newfound respect and a voice in future planning initiatives. Maintenance must seek to determine and deliver representative reports required by management.

In an age of corporate mergers, downsizing and budget slashing, the maintenance department is always vulnerable to cutbacks in both budget and manpower. Many maintenance departments have witnessed the destruction of their proactive maintenance programs because management did not understand the importance of the maintenance function and the maintenance investment required to attain and sustain throughput capacity and quality assurance.

Maintenance must be proactive in its dealings with management, understand management’s perspective and teach management the importance of the maintenance function. MT

Ken Bannister is lead partner and principal consultant for Engtech Industries, Inc. Telephone: (519) 469-9173; e-mail:

Continue Reading →


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

Solution Spotlight: Where An Obsession Is Leading To Increased Efficiency

The Operating Engineers Trust Fund Building…

0108_hvac_1If you’re a Union Pension Trust Fund that owns real estate and demands the highest level of operating efficiency for your buildings, you need to continually implement cutting-edge energy conservation measures. This is done by maximizing the long-term financial performance of the investment.

Those who work for the Operating Engineers Pension Trust, Local 12, out of Pasadena, CA, want to be the best when it comes to HVAC systems optimization and performance. As the chief engineer for this Trust Fund, Bruce Manning admits to being obsessed with finding ways to minimize energy use in the buildings for which he is responsible.

One of those sites is the Trust Fund headquarters located at 100 E. Corson St. in Pasadena. Manning’s obsession is why he is so excited about the performance of the new Danfoss Turbocor technology. The newly installed oil-free compressors in the building have opened the door to additional cooling savings. He predicts these could be as high as 50-70% versus his older compressors.

Supporting the system
The four-story office building was completed in 1988 and encompasses 210,000 gross square feet. The heart of the original cooling system was two 120-ton, open-drive reciprocating compressors connected to a built-up direct-expansion (DX) coil with 16 expansion valves.

Conditioned air is delivered to four floors of VAV boxes from the centralized penthouse air-handling system with dual, side-by-side DX coils and associated face-off dampers, variable-speed driven supply and return-air fans. The system also features a fully functional, 100% outside air (O/A) enthalpy-controlled economizer system.

The road to improvements
When Manning, a 30-year engineering and energy analysis veteran, took over in 1993, he performed extensive maintenance management and energy management evaluations of the entire real estate portfolio, including this facility. Over time, he installed VFDs on the supply and return fans, as well as the cooling tower fans to conserve energy by eliminating the previous constant-volume fan operation using inlet-guide vane control. He then retrofitted and overlaid a point-intensive DDC energy management control system on all mechanical equipment and floor VAV boxes.

Manning developed his “Energy Report Card,” which utilizes kBtu/sq. ft. as the primary benchmark to evaluate and sustain the energy efficiency of his buildings. After evaluating all possible plant retrofit options for years, he knew that additional efficiency improvements were possible, but not at the right cost/benefit and associated return-on-investment ratios. He became particularly interested in refrigeration compressor improvements and began studying and tracking a new low-friction, oil-free refrigeration compressor. This technology was developed by Danfoss Turbocor and was beginning to appear in California. Manning says, “I had been following the development of this technology since its inception.”

Manning concluded that the technology with its oil-free design, variable-frequency speed control, floating magnetic bearings, centrifugal compression and digital controls was the ideal replacement compressor for his building. Since then, the technology has exceeded his expectations.

“For the first time,” he concludes, “I have seen a refrigeration system that can be so precisely tuned that there is zero operating slop.” MT

Danfoss Turbocor
Tallahassee, FL

Continue Reading →


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

MOC Best Practices: Improving Productivity And Reducing Costs

While your MOC program may be in compliance with the regs, its processes may not be as efficient as they could be.

0108_moc_1Over the past 17 years, Management of Change (MOC) has received increased attention at chemical plants and refineries due to the promulgation of new OSHA regulations. Officially designated 29CFR 1910.119 Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals, the OSHA PSM regulations state that any time a critical component in an oil or chemical plant changes, a formal MOC program is required to ensure that the proposed change is made safely.

However, recent analysis conducted by Gateway Consulting Group, a specialist in the design and implementation of enterprise content management (ECM) solutions for chemical and petrochemical plant environments, notes that while plant owners are in compliance with OSHA regulations, their MOC processes are not necessarily efficient. [Ref. 1]

Evidence of poor efficiency includes:

  • Long cycle times for MOC closure;
  • The need for, and hiring of, temporary staff to “look after the MOC paperwork” prior to and during turnarounds;
  • People being asked to review documents on which they’ve previously signed off;
  • Any person who is asked to sign a document or form, to signify that they’ve been notified rather than to approve the document.

These problems exist whether the MOC system is entirely on paper, entirely electronic or a hybrid.

“When OSHA issued the regulations in 1992, I took a very hard look at all of the information management that needed to take place in order to comply with the PSM regulations. I counted over 101 information-items and document types,” says Dr. Rainer Hoff, Gateway’s president. “If you are operating a small gas plant in a remote location with less than 10,000 documents, then probably a paper-based system is adequate. But, if you are operating a larger plant with potentially 200,000+ drawings and 10 million+ pages of documents, then it gets to be a little more onerous. The volume of information to comply with PSM is great and doing it with paper can be unwieldy. Electronic systems offer an advantage.”

According to Hoff, to really excel at MOCs, an organization needs an ECM system with an MOC application. The necessary capabilities include: a repository for managing all the plant documentation including drawings and equipment files; a records management function to ensure that all data in the repository is compliant with applicable regulations and standards; an MOC application that manages all the data needed to execute the MOC; and, an electronic signature capability.

Although an electronic MOC system does not necessarily need to handle documents and records management, ensuring that documents are updated appropriately and managed as records is a natural extension of the system. Benefits will include reduction of both the backlog on managing the revisions of those documents, and of errors due to documents not being kept accurately up to date. Having all MOC-related content accessible in a single ECM repository provides full visibility and transparency should OSHA arrive to review a particular MOC.

MOC is the largest business process for a facility. Operators are constantly searching for ways to conduct the work more efficiently to reduce costs in terms of time, human resources, money spent on the process and the consequences, and safety, environmental and reliability implications. Hoff points to three major types of MOC applications in the marketplace today:

  • MOC Tracking Applications. These usually consist of a database and a number of forms. They track header data about the MOC (e.g., number, date created, where in the plant the change is located) and some status information about the MOC (e.g., who has it, who has already approved it). Some reports also can be generated. MOC tracking applications are very resource-intensive since a person must be designated as the administrator for the MOCs. MOC tracking applications do not automate any part of the business process.
  • Traditional Workflow-Based Applications. These applications are programmed using traditional, transaction- oriented, workflow tools. Each step is identified, which means the person creating the workflow must know how many steps there are and who is supposed to perform them. This can be problematic since MOCs have such huge diversity: up front you never know what has to be done on a given MOC, what documents have to be updated and who the approvers are going to be. When traditional workflow tools are used to model this level of uncertainty, the workflows become extremely complex. Furthermore, traditional workflows have a strong notion of “flow”—when one task is finished the next one begins. That forces an excessive amount of sequencing on the workflow. Forced sequences slow down the entire process, making the approval process unacceptably long.
  • State-Based MOC Applications. In these applications, the MOC lifecycle is broken into various states—Initiation, Classification, Approval, Mechanical Integrity, etc. During a state, the application is quite flexible since tasks can be added or removed and approvers can be added or removed (subject to certain rules). This provides the fastest and most flexible method for completing the work of MOCs. The decisions regarding which documents need to be updated, which tasks need to be completed and who the approvers should be (for any state) are driven by a set of rules. The rule set is created and enhanced without any programming (which would be the case with the traditional workflows). As a result, it’s more convenient, quicker and less expensive than other approaches.

Removing bottlenecks
Over the last two years, Dr. Hoff quantitatively analyzed MOC processes at over a dozen chemical and petrochemical facilities in the United States. The resulting statistics highlight bottlenecks, identify areas for improvement and, most importantly, quantify the improvements that will result from changes in the process. [Ref. 2] This research was done to complement the data he had from conducting over 20 plant-based electronic document management projects.

“The Gateway MOC best practices research is based on the notion that “best” can’t be “best” until it’s proven to be “best.” In order to prove something is “best,” you need to have objective criteria. In other words, we have to measure something, such as cycle time, cost, or some combination thereof,” says Hoff. “Due to practical limitations, we couldn’t go to a company and try out many different kinds of MOC processes, but we could simulate many different kinds of MOC processes. We used the Petri-Net method for simulating MOCs. This is a very powerful and flexible tool, and we haven’t encountered a process yet that can’t be modeled with Petri-Nets.”

To date, Hoff has run over 100 million iterations of simulations of different aspects of MOC and has a good statistical base upon which to draw conclusions about what is “best.” The kinds of questions that get answered with Petri-Nets are: ‘Where are the process bottlenecks?’ ‘Where are more/fewer resources needed?’ ‘How can cycle times be reduced?’ and, ‘How much does it cost to reduce cycle times?’ among others.

Approvals are one area where an electronic MOC system can provide great benefits. Gateway’s research highlights the fact that process improvements, defined by reduced cycle times, can be effected with the following types of techniques:

  • Using electronic approvals rather than collecting signatures on a paper form;
  • Conducting approvals in parallel as much as possible; serial approvals take much longer;
  • Having the system send out reminders when approvals are overdue;
  • Expediting approvals when they are greatly overdue;
  • Ensuring that each approver has delegated someone to act on his/her behalf, in the event that the approver is absent (i.e. away from the plant);
  • Training people to respond to electronic requests for action, rather than ignoring them
  • Only using approvers who will contribute knowledge to the process; everyone else should simply be on the notification list, not on the approval list.

“Surprisingly, and this was revealed by the simulations, the second largest benefit of electronic MOCs is that the MOC packets don’t get lost. Lost MOC packets are a big problem in the paper MOC world, and they cost a huge amount of time and resources. Electronic MOCs do not get lost, so this problem goes away,” adds Hoff.

Gateway’s analysis suggests that a chemical plant or petroleum refinery can save significantly on a typical MOC using an electronic system. “Reducing the cycle time to do a routine MOC from 40 days down to 20 days is entirely reasonable,” says Hoff. “Instead of requiring 30 man-hours to process, it now takes only 20 man-hours. Based on our analysis, this reduced effort amounts to $1000 savings per MOC. So, if a company does 500–800 MOCs per year, this would amount to a potential savings of $500,000–$800,000 per year.”

But, these savings are only half the picture. Quite often, to do a change, a plant or refinery must turn around a unit. A crude unit at a refinery could process about 150,000 barrels of crude per day. With current gas prices and the price of oil, that can amount to about $15 million worth of crude that gets processed per day. So if a refinery needs to shut down a crude unit for a day, it could lose perhaps $1 million in profit simply because the unit shut down. If the MOC paperwork is stalled, overdue or late, it will mean delays in starting up the unit again. With an ECM system in place, when a turnaround occurs, companies will have a much greater ability to predict when the changes are going to be done and avoid delays in starting up again. MT

Chris Vassalotti is responsible for business development and solution initiatives for Open Text in the areas of Energy, Chemical, Utilities, and Engineering. He has been building and delivering enterprise wide applications for engineering related industries for over 10 years. References 1. “Management of Change Best Practices,” White Paper by Rainer Hoff, Ph.D., P.Eng., president of Gateway Consulting Group, Inc., May 2007 2. Ibid.

HOVENSA’S EXPERIENCE: Eliminating paper-based processes…

HOVENSA, a joint venture between a subsidiary of Hess Corporation and a subsidiary of Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), operates a world-class merchant refinery in St Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. One of the most modern refineries in the U.S., HOVENSA has a crude oil processing capacity of 500,000 barrels per day. It is one of the largest facilities of its kind in the world.

HOVENSA engaged Gateway Consulting Group to conduct a thorough study of their information management requirements; assist in the vendor RFP and product evaluation support; and aid in the planning and design of an ECM solution for the refinery. Working with a cross section of people from maintenance and engineering areas to develop their requirements, Gateway identified a number of business processes where the company could increase efficiencies with an ECM system. The processes range from MOC and Material Safety Data Sheet management, to drawing management with CAD integration, work permit records, and accounts payable processing.

Following an extensive review, HOVENSA selected Open Text’s Livelink ECM as the corporate platform for its electronic Document Management, Workflow and Records Management features.

“We had several requirements. One was document management: making documents easy to find. We also wanted a way to control who could update the documents and be able to keep track of the revision history and audit trails,” says Bob Guilford, Application Development Leader at HOVENSA. “With paper-based systems, it’s often difficult to find and trust information. You may have the current version or an older version, the version history isn’t known, and it may be time-consuming to find a document.”

Document and records management was one major focus for HOVENSA. Records management ensures compliance and reduces risk by enabling the full lifecycle management of all corporate information. The other driver was finding a better way to manage workflow processes. “Paper based workflows are not very efficient. Paperwork can get lost and it may sit on desks. Electronic workflows can be tracked with audit trails and can send out automatic email reminders,” says Guilford. “With electronic workflows we can streamline many of our business processes—everything from expense reports to vacation requests—our standard business processes that have historically been done by paper based forms.”

Guilford says the first paper-based process to go electronic will be MOCs and Incident Investigations. “MOC is probably the most rapid payout so we’re focusing on that one first.” The Process Safety Management Group identified several issues with its paper based MOC and Incident Investigation processes that would benefit from an electronic MOC solution: the paper based process requires significant, tedious follow up work by the engineering staff. Another issue is that paper approvals are all-inclusive, meaning the MOC package must be kept complete and intact—leading to unnecessary work and delays as well as inconsistent usage.

“A significant problem with paper workflow is that it goes to one desk at a time,” says Guilford. “By making it electronic, it allows multiple people to work concurrently. For example, if there are approvals needed from three people, they can all be notified and begin the work on approvals at the same time since the electronic package will be accessible by everyone. Also, steps can’t be taken out of order. There’s an audit trail of who approves what and when. Standard-ized work processes will keep us consistent and improve compliance quality.”

Open Text teamed up with Gateway and HOVENSA to develop its Livelink ECM – MOC solution based on Gateway’s MOC best practices. The Livelink Plant Compliance software offers companies a configurable “Plant Compliance Workspace” for the MOCs, Incidents, and Action Items. Building on the core strength of content management and business process automation, the solution provides all the key components, including the Plant Structure browser, simple initiation of MOCs, the ability to report on these topics using Web reports or business intelligence (BI) tools as well as document management, audit ability and business process management (BPM) capabilities. The metrics based reporting allows workflow issues to be identified and resolved, speeding up the cycle times.

Within the Plant Compliance workspace, organizations can be grouped into sites and site-specific divisions. An asset-based system, it represents all the equipment in the plant, typically by a hierarchy of Area, Unit and then individual pieces of equipment within that unit. Companies also can drill down even further to parts and components, etc. Users can go to any level on the plant structure and see all of the MOCs that have been generated. For example, once at the unit level, users can see all the different pieces of equipment that have an MOC in a particular unit.

All of the content associated with an MOC, such as equipment manuals, process and instrumentation diagrams, CAD drawings, email communication, etc., is stored in a central ECM repository and can be tied back to the physical assets of the plant. This ensures that all documentation that represents the physical condition of the plant is readily accessible for risk management and compliance purposes.

“In our case, we have one site—HOVENSA—and it’s organized by Areas, each consisting of several units,” says Guilford. “The plant structure serves several purposes. Equipment or locations to be changed can be selected on the MOC entry screen. This allows reporting based upon consistent equipment names. Livelink imports the plant hierarchy from our Maintenance System stored in SAP (which will allow future SAP system linkages). Also, default workflow roles can be assigned based on the Area or Unit being changed.”

Guilford adds: “The solution is very flexible in that we can assign our own names to the fields on the entry screens; we can write our own ‘mouse-over’ messages with instructions for the user; we can add fields if we want additional fields for reporting purposes. It’s highly configurable, which is an added benefit.”

‘Fast Track’ MOCs allow a template workflow to be copied for the more common cases where the same type of change may be repeated many times. This enables common activities to be handled efficiently and ensures better consistency. Demonstrating the immediate benefits that an electronic MOC system can offer for these common occurrences is an effective way to gain user adoption when rolling out the new system. “I think our users will gravitate toward the new MOC system pretty quickly,” says Guilford. “The paper-based process had a lot of disadvantages. The electronic system will allow our engineers to do engineering work, not paperwork.”

Continue Reading →


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

Publisher’s Notes: – On Target, On The Job, Around The Clock


Bill Kiesel, Publisher/Vice President

With this issue, our 240th, we begin our 21st year and are proud to be “Your Source for Capacity Assurance Solutions.

Throughout 2007, we spent very little time looking back. Instead, as always, we tended to focus our attention on going forward—on the issues, strategies and solutions you can leverage to help your organizations stay productive and profitable. Business intelligence is all about delivering the right information in the right format to the right people at the right time so those people can make effective and timely business decisions. It is our top priority to continue doing the same for you in 2008 and beyond.

In our constant quest to keep you informed, I am very pleased to let you know that we have begun our New Year by rolling out a New Website. While it may be the same Internet address you’re accustomed to visiting—www.—we’ve given it a great new look and functionality. We used your comments and suggestions to polish the design, add new features and make your search for solutions much easier than before. Much, much easier…

As you know, Maintenance Technology is not just a successful, must-read magazine; it is a successful, must-read brand—in print and online. Our staff puts the same emphasis on quality, targeted content in our online products as they do with our print publication.

Reliability and maintenance professionals throughout industry have known for 20 years that they can count on Maintenance Technology to deliver the comprehensive technical and business information (i.e. “capacity assurance solutions”) they need. Now, with our newly designed Website, that information-gathering experience will be significantly enhanced. Features and search functions that will make it simpler than ever to access the content you need include:

  • Advanced Archived Articles—Easily find information you are seeking in our previously published editorial:
    • Search by month and year
    • Search by topic or keyword
  • Streamlined Supplier Search—Quickly locate the suppliers, products and/or services you need to keep your systems and processes up and running.
  • Training—Explore relevant educational offerings and links that help you stay up-to-date on the skills and certifications critical to your job.
  • White Paper Hosting and e-Distribution—Dig deep into cutting-edge technologies and methodologies supplied by industry’s top thought leaders.
  • Events—Stay in touch with what’s happening in the reliability and maintenance arena, including upcoming premier industry events.

But, that’s just a start. will continue to evolve, grow and improve as you and the industry do. I encourage you keep an eye out for more new features—and don’t hesitate to let us know how our publication and Website can serve you even more effectively going forward. As Darwin noted, “It is not the strongest or the bravest that survive. It is those that are most adaptable to change.” Happy New Year! MT


Continue Reading →


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

Technology Update: Nondestructive Testing Services

Keep the following information in mind as you seek out the best product for your specific needs.

Nondestructive testing (NDT) is crucial in ensuring the reliability, integrity and SAFETY of materials, components, equipment, vessels, processes, etc. Some NDT techniques can be used in a time-based program to monitor equipment components. Others can be used for examining suspected failures identified through different means, or as a way to check the condition of critical components when they are returned to service after maintenance. The following is a sampling of some of the companies and services offered in the field of nondestructive testing.

0108_techupdate_11Metallurgical Technologies, Inc. P.A.

Metallurgical Technologies, Inc. P.A. (“MTi”) is a metallurgical analysis and testing laboratory that specializes in rapid response forensic engineering. Accurate test results are obtained using advanced analytical equipment and techniques. Results are interpreted and recommendations are made by licensed Professional Engineers who are recognized as experts in their field as well as recognized expert forensic engineers. The company provides a full spectrum of metallurgical engineering services including: failure analysis, corrosion and defect investigations, reverse engineering, SEM/EDS microanalysis, mechanical and weldment testing, chemical analysis, metallography, consulting, nondestructive testing, and litigation support to a wide range of clients in various industries. MTi also can provide testing and analysis results within 24 hours.

Metallurgical Technologies, Inc. P.A.
Mooresville, NC

Magnetic Analysis Corporation

Magnetic Analysis Corporation has over seventy years experience in nondestructive testing. They developed the first American made system using electromagnetic principles for the detection of flaws in steel products. Since then, MAC has grown to become a source of NDT services and equipment for testing metals. Their technology encompasses eddy-current, electromagnetic, fluxleakage and ultrasonic methods. Dedicated to a production oriented approach to testing, MAC offers both individual instruments and complete systems that incorporate materials handling as well as nondestructive testing. MAC field engineers are located throughout the United States, Europe and Australia.

Magnetic Analysis Corporation
Mount Vernon, NY

Quad City Testing Laboratory, Inc.

For more than 25 years, Quad City Testing Laboratory, Inc. (QCTL) has been providing testing and inspection services to all aspects of industry. QCTL is both field and laboratory capable in all nondestructive testing methods. Because they are not a repair service or a manufacturer, the company can provide its customers with an impartial assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of structural components. Services offered include: radiography (gamma & X-ray), magnetic particle (wet and dry), ultrasonic (shear & longitudinal wave), ultrasonic thickness integrity, liquid penetrant (visible & fluorescent), visual, hardness, holiday testing, eddy current, leak testing, mechanical (tensile/bend testing), technical consulting/level III services, welder and procedure qualifications, training and dielectric.

Quad City Testing Laboratory, Inc.
Davenport, IA

Predict Monitoring Systems Inc.

Founded in 1996, Predict Monitoring Systems Inc. is a service and training provider of predictive maintenance technologies. Over the past 10 years, they have expanded their services and markets throughout Ontario and Western New York. Predict Monitoring Systems Inc. offers a full range of nondestructive testing, which includes liquid penetrant, magnetic particle and ultrasonic inspection. All testing is performed by c.g.s.b. certified personnel. Applications include lifting equipment, corrosion monitoring, weld integrity, and commissioning of new equipment. Predict Monitoring Systems Inc. can recommend and implement inspection programs to help evaluate the condition of the customer’s equipment and the quality of their products.

Predict Monitoring Systems Inc.
Welland, ON

Thielsch Engineering Corp.

Thielsch Engineering Corp.’s Nondestructive Examination (NDE) department offers both in-laboratory and portable field inspections utilizing radiographic, magnetic particle, ultrasonic, liquid penetrant, hydrostatic and videoborescopic examination techniques. Certified Welding Inspections (CWI) are also performed on a local, national and international basis as well as in support of the other divisions of Thielsch Engineering. The company’s inspectors are qualified to meet the requirements of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing Practice SNT-TC-1A. Each nondestructive examination is performed to the requirements of major codes, including the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Codes, the ASME/ANSI Codes for Pressure Piping, the American Petroleum Institute Codes, American Welding Society Standards and military specifications.

Thielsch Engineering Corp.
Cranston, RI

Zetec, Inc.

Zetec provides nondestructive (NDE) inspection solutions based on integrated multi-method technologies— eddy current, ultrasonic, remote field and magnetic flux leakage. The company offers complete NDE solutions worldwide, including a line of turn-key systems, instrumentation, software products, supplies, calibration, repair, training and inspection services. In addition, their customers bring Zetec hundreds of new nondestructive testing challenges. Zetec focuses on these customer applications to provide complete solutions as well as leadership for innovation and best practices in NDE inspections. Zetec’s team of industry and technical experts—application engineers, probe designers, machinists, and assemblers—help to meet those challenges.

Zetec, Inc.
Issaquah, WA

Quality Services Laboratories QSL-Plus

Quality Services Laboratories QSL-Plus offers a wide variety of testing techniques of equipment and materials. Inspection techniques include traditional nondestructive testing, such as GPR, PMI and MP; radiography and advanced testing, such as acoustic emission, automated UT and ACFM. They also provides specialized solutions for power equipment testing (power transformers, load tap changers, on-site DGA, high voltage bus bars, circuit breakers, instrument transformers, gas insulated substations, high voltage cables), transportation vehicles (aerial lift, fire apparatus) and the pulp and paper industry.

Quality Services Laboratories QSL-Plus
Trainer, PA

EMP Engineering Services, Inc.

Founded in 1997, EMP Engineering Services has provided services to clients in business segments from basic metals to component manufacturing to power generation. The company provides complete equipment management programs, including condition monitoring services for rotating equipment and power delivery systems and asset management services. These programs help customers drive down life-cycle costs associated with the ownership and use of power utilization and delivery equipment. EMP Engineering Services’ condition monitoring employs the following technologies: vibration monitoring, motor circuit evaluation (MCE), infrared inspections and ultrasonic inspections.

EMP Engineering Services, Inc.
Dresher, PA

Conam Inspection and Engineering Services, Inc.

The CONAM organization’s nondestructive testing capabilities include conventional NDT applications combined with advanced technologies. NDT services include ultrasonics, radiography, eddy current and remote field eddy current, magnetic particle, liquid penetrant, positive material identification and visual. Virtually all CONAM services are available within their growing network of laboratories or deployed to the field seven days a week, around-the-clock. These services are delivered by trained and experienced inspection professionals and supported by a management team dedicated to customer service. Industries served include refining, power generation, aerospace, petrochemical, automotive, construction, pulp and paper, transportation, metalworking, primary metals and defense.

Conam Inspection and Engineering Services, Inc.
Princeton, NJ

PTI Industries

PTI Industries utilizes state-of-the-art equipment and procedures to verify that the customer’s parts meet required specifications. They specialize in the following nondestructive testing techniques: fluorescent and liquid penetrant inspect and magnetic particle inspeciton (MPI). PTI provides their customers with accurate results, quick turnarounds and low prices. Their experienced technicians, trained customer service personnel and quality-control department work to easily integrate their nondestructive testing operations into your production schedule.

PTI Industries
Enfield, CT

Continue Reading →


6:00 am
January 1, 2008
Print Friendly

Uptime: Where Is The Reliability Improvement Policy?


Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Policy – A deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s). Policy merely guides actions toward those behaviors that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome. (…From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Most successful businesses and institutions in the modern world have a number of policies that 1) serve as a guide for running the business and making decisions; 2) set clear expectations; and 3) serve as a guide for improving the business enterprise. A company “policy manual” is usually a compilation of the policies and procedures to be used as a guideline for consistency and continuity of the various actions routinely taken while running the business.

Think of how most companies manage their employees’ vacations, sick time, medical leave, hiring, compensation and such. They typically use “policies” developed by their business leaders or executives to assure fairness in decisions that affect their employees. “Employee handbooks” outlining these policies often are published and distributed to keep the organization—and all of the people who are employed there—on a common course. In the case of product and process quality, many companies have developed a “Quality Policy Manual” that sets the operating framework for their ISO-9000 quality work processes and methods.

So, where is the “Reliability Policy”—the policy that guides improvement of the maintenance and reliability processes and methods? Where is the company policy ensuring that the equipment and facilities (often the single largest investment) are treated with responsible care by all employees, in ways that assure reliable and consistent performance, revenue generation and competitiveness? Unfortunately, most capital-intensive businesses do not have a “Reliability Policy” that serves as a guide for managing capital assets, maintaining, making decisions about and improving the performance and reliability of those assets?

Who needs a reliability policy?
Any capital-intensive business that depends on equipment assets to generate revenue will benefit from a Reliability Policy that is deployed throughout the organization. Manufacturing, petro-chemical processes, utility systems, power generation, transportation, distribution centers, mining operations and agriculture are just a few examples of businesses that depend on equipment—reliable equipment—to produce and market competitive goods. Generally speaking, every one of these businesses has numerous policies that set expectations and serve as operating guidelines. For example, look at the typical written policies in your business—policies that are communicated in many formats throughout the business—and how they are used to guide successful decision-making and behaviors:

  • Safety & accident prevention policies
  • Quality & defect prevention policies
  • Environmental & pollution prevention policies
  • Human resources policies
  • Finance & accounting policies
  • Privacy & personal information policies
  • Corporate social responsibility policy
  • Information systems & data management policies
  • Business ethics policies
  • Shareholder & dividend policies
  • Proprietary & business information policies
  • Purchasing & procurement policies

When there is NO POLICY, how does a company expect its employees to respond to equipment maintenance and reliability questions, problems, opportunities and improvements? If you want to improve the way your equipment and facilities are operated and maintained, how they are cared for and how their performance is improved, you need a Reliability Policy—or better yet, a Reliability Improvement Policy. Such a policy should originate at the top levels of the company and may be fairly general in regard to plans, schedules and tactics. A “guiding coalition” of formal and informal leaders should structure the policy statement.

What should a policy statement contain?
The Reliability Improvement Policy statement should become more and more explicit as it is interpreted from the top down through the organization. At the lowest leadership level (plant, area, department), it should be a specific plan or a strategy for taking action that is consistent with the Reliability Improvement Policy statement.

A Reliability Improvement Policy statement should be explicit regarding:

  • The compelling business reason for improving equipment and/or process reliability;
  • The acceptable maintenance and reliability work processes and standards;
  • What is to be improved;
  • How reliability improvement will be measured;
  • The timeframes in which reliability improvement should be made.

How do you deploy this type of policy?
A time-proven method for developing and establishing company improvement policies is called “Policy Deployment.” The purpose of Policy Deployment is to enable the shift from the status quo so as to make major performance improvements by analyzing and addressing current business competitive opportunities and operational problems.

Policy Deployment methods called “Hoshin Planning” (Hoshin Kanri), a system of strategic and operational planning, were developed and refined by numerous companies such as Toyota, Nippon Denso, Komatsu and others in Japan during the 1960s. These companies blended proven ideas from Dr. Edward Deming (PDCA cycle), Dr. Joseph Juran (quality policy) and Dr. Peter Drucker (MBO) into strategic planning to create the Hoshin Planning methodology—and since the 1980s, many well-known businesses in the United States have made significant and sustainable improvements using it. This policy deployment process continues to thrive in many successful Lean Enterprise businesses.

Policy Deployment cascades, or deploys, top management policies and targets down the management hierarchy. At each level, the policy is translated into policies, targets and actions for the next level down. Using a “Policy Deployment” strategy for establishing and infusing a “Reliability Improvement Policy” makes sense: It will connect the important factors of business success from the highest levels of the company to the plant-floor workgroups and then back to the top levels.

This Policy Deployment “line of sight” acts as a compass, pointing north, keeping the entire organization heading in the right direction. Without a common direction, focused leadership and engaged workgroups at all levels, almost any improvement process is doomed to failure or, at best, stagnation.

So, where are we going?
Over the years, the Cheshire Cat in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland has been paraphrased time and again by those of us considering the “direction” of continuous improvement in our industrial operations… “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.” Accordingly, if we don’t have a Reliability Improvement Policy, how can we possibly hope to achieve consistent and sustainable maintenance and reliability improvement success? The answer to that may best be summed up in the words of another particularly insightful “cat”… “Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success.” Thank you, Henry Ford. MT

Continue Reading →