Author Archive | Bob Williamson

72

1:53 pm
September 14, 2016
Print Friendly

Uptime: When Best Practices Aren’t Enough

By Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

bobmugnewConsider the following remarks.

“Recently, our top executives announced that our cost of manufacturing still wasn’t what it needed to be, even with all the maintenance improvements and lean initiatives over the past few years. And while our quality and delivery continue to be topnotch, one of our largest customers served an ultimatum that they would be taking their business overseas unless we could improve our pricing.”

“Despite all the maintenance best practices we’ve deployed, we (and others) are finding the department under the cost-cutting knife again. We’ve improved our spare-parts management significantly in the past two years, including stock outs, inventory levels, critical spares, and obsolete parts. Our maintenance labor hours are 90% proactive. But, new equipment continues to be added to the mix to reduce operating labor costs. What should we do?”

Sound familiar?

The real goal

Cost cutting is not a goal. It’s an action deployed as a way to achieve a short-term business goal—one that’s often short lived.

Here’s the challenge: While executives may be preparing for another round of cost cutting, there could be a more powerful alternative. It’s going to take thinking outside the maintenance box, however, to look at manufacturing process reliability. The real goal here is to show management how it can reduce manufacturing costs and position the business for higher earnings growth by tapping into the plant’s hidden capacity.

I recently discussed this approach with a company’s top executives and plant-leadership team. They talked about how strong their business was this year and on into early next year. Their honest concerns centered around getting costs under control to improve the company’s earnings in light of the potential loss of a large customer looking for price cuts. They summarized their strategic performance indicators as three overarching goals:

  • On time, in full—orders shipped to customers on time in the quantity and quality requested.
  • Lead time—reduced time between order received and order shipped.
  • Cost per unit produced—lowest all-in, total cost of making a product.

These executives were describing their goals for a reliable manufacturing process, i.e., a process that performs as intended. Their vision reflects a real opportunity for the organization—one that eclipses another cost-cutting initiative.

Tapping into a plant’s hidden capacity can help cut manufacturing costs and position the business for higher earnings.

Tapping into a plant’s hidden capacity can help cut manufacturing costs and position the business for higher earnings.

Thinking beyond maintenance

Let’s explore this opportunity by thinking about reliable manufacturing processes, i.e., thinking beyond maintenance. The executives who spoke with me agreed to form an improvement team of hand-picked personnel, including the maintenance manager, production operator, maintenance mechanic/union president, front-line supervisor, manufacturing vice president, and the continuous-improvement/quality director. The team used the following data-mining process to get started:

  • Identify the strategic key performance indicators (KPIs), i.e., lagging indicators.
  • Mine company data to determine the leading indicators and what form they take.
  • Determine how plant performance is inhibited, according to the current data.
  • The next step involved a review of top-level indicators that plant leadership was focused on improving, including:
  • labor efficiency variance as a percentage of standard
  • indirect factory labor as a percentage of revenue
  • operating expense as a percentage of revenue
  • obsolete materials and work in process (WIP).

Team members then began to look for specific factors that contributed to labor, operating expense, and materials cost. They also looked for factors that could interrupt flow through the entire manufacturing process to the paying customer.

Based on the team’s review of various ad hoc reports from the company, the improvement team found the most frequently listed reasons for the plant performance losses to be:

  • ran out of work in process (WIP) to meet an order.
  • ran out of raw materials to produce to plan.
  • inaccurate inventory: WIP and raw materials.
  • schedule change: materials delayed upstream.

The improvement team also learned that material cost was the highest cost of manufacturing and labor cost was the lowest.

Asking ‘why’

Drilling down another level into the most-frequently listed reasons for plant-performance losses was the improvement team’s next step: For example, answers to Why did we run out of WIP to meet an order? included:

  • no reason
  • system quantity was different than what actually existed
  • some named items were defective and could not be used.
  • items needed were on quality control hold.

Asking Why did we run out of raw materials to produce to plan at the upstream production processes? revealed some similarities:

  • not enough materials on skid, wrong count.
  • some materials were defective, damaged.

Team members soon recognized that they were discovering why production flow was being interrupted in the plant. In turn, they began wondering if equipment issues, i.e., breakdowns, might also be leading to performance losses. Digging into machine-downtime-tracking information, they found documentation that stated: Machine down for repairs, no operator, no reason listed.

To learn more about the nature of repairs in the plant’s critical-constraint production department, members of the improvement team began discussing machine downtime issues with personnel in the maintenance and operations groups. It was learned that the losses were not so much about equipment breakdowns, but rather:

  • setup problems
  • equipment damage
  • adjustments.

By asking why, the improvement team discovered that machine problems interrupted flow and were possibly linked to inventory and quality issues that had a direct effect on plant performance and the top KPIs (key performance indicators). Unfortunately, other than through maintenance requests, very few machine-related losses were being reported, tracked, or systematically analyzed. This situation had to change if plant reliability was to improve.

Tracking major equipment losses

What equipment-related losses should be tracked to improve plant reliability? The improvement team identified the types of losses that would most likely have a strategic impact on the business: equipment-utilization losses. Here’s how team members agreed to formally collect and categorize equipment performance data for the 17 most critical assets in the plant:

  • Equipment capacity (designed or historical best)
  • Planned capacity losses:
    • Planned shutdown: not scheduled/no demand
    • Planned shutdown: maintenance
    • Planned downtime: not scheduled (breaks, shift change)
  • Planned utilization: time that machine was scheduled to produce something
    • Utilization losses (during scheduled operating time, i.e., the hidden factory):
      • planned downtime: setup/changeover
      • unplanned downtime: no or defective WIP/material
      • unplanned downtime: breakdown
      • unplanned downtime: no operator
      • unplanned downtime: production schedule change and/or interruption
      • efficiency loss: slow-speed or throughput rate
      • efficiency loss: minor stops/startup/adjustment.
    • Yield loss: defects/damaged/scrap output
    • Yield loss: defects/rework
    • Yield loss: startup/adjustment.
  • Actual asset utilization: the bottom line; what the equipment actually delivers).

The reliability mindset

In this case, the improvement team recognized that improving plant reliability is not as much about maintenance as it is about identifying and eliminating equipment-performance losses and interruptions to flow. And, to do that, it’s crucial to have equipment performance data that are accurate and timely.

The good news so far is that top-level executives and other plant leaders have agreed to identify and address the most significant equipment-utilization losses in the manufacturing-flow constraints. Stay tuned for more as this story unfolds. MT

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM, and a member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the people side of world-class maintenance and reliability in plants and facilities across North America. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

129

3:04 pm
August 10, 2016
Print Friendly

Uptime: Don’t Overlook Spare-Parts Reliability

bobmugnewBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Maintenance management covers a variety of functions, including the managing of spare parts. We know that the quality of those parts has a direct impact on the reliability and maintainability of equipment, machinery, and facilities. There’s more to it, though, than simply managing a storeroom.

How spare parts are specified, purchased, shipped, stored, dispersed, and installed reflects critical elements in physical-asset performance and operating cost. Unfortunately, the parts are often overlooked in ways that compromise equipment reliability.

Real-world impact

Even the most reliable equipment can fail if the right spare parts—fit for service and mission ready—aren’t installed properly. While a maintenance staff’s skill and knowledge is an important reliability factor, the inherent reliability of spare parts at the time of installation is even more so.

Consider these examples of how spare parts can contribute to machine failures, excessive downtime, higher costs, and financial losses.

Transportation damage. Several catastrophic failures of the fan in a plant’s heat-treatment carburizing furnace led to enormous production and financial losses, not to mention a disruptive domino effect on production schedules. Removing and replacing the fan is difficult and time consuming, given its location in the bottom of the furnace.

A failure analysis determined that cracks in the fan cooling jacket led to bearing failures. These events continued even after months of discussing fan construction with the OEM, changing welding methods, and carefully installing new fans.

Eventually a root-cause analysis session was held with operators, maintainers, supervisors, area managers, plant engineers, and the fan company’s owner. All potential failure causes were quickly ruled out based on prior actions. The facilitator then asked the group to take a hard look at the fan currently installed in the furnace and a new spare in the storeroom.

As participants checked out the new spare firmly strapped to a wooden pallet with its shaft in a horizontal orientation, the fan manufacturer asked a question that ultimately unraveled the mystery of repeated failures: “Is that how we ship these fans to you?”

At this point, a mechanic interjected that when a fan is installed, its shaft is vertical. “That could cause bearing problems,” he said. Others weren’t so sure.

The OEM began speculating: “These fans are shipped more than 800 miles to your plant by truck,” he said. “Imagine the bumping and jarring with the weight of the fan and shaft supported by the bearings on the cooling jacket. The cracks in the failed units seem to start around the upper side of the shaft-bearing mounts. Shipping them flat, in the same orientation as they are installed in the furnace, may prevent the cracking.” Was he on to something?

Once the manner of shipping was changed, i.e., with the fans strapped to pallets in the same orientation as they were to be installed, the failures ceased. The maintenance group also found that the fan bearings lasted longer.

In-plant moving methods. “It’s a big electric motor. How did you expect me to move it?” The speaker was a forklift operator who found it easier to pick up large motors by the shafts located at each end of the units. After all, they fit nicely between the forks, with minimal adjustment, and would roll to the back of the forks when they were tilted back slightly. Great move for the forklift driver.

As for the motors, their shafts were becoming hammered, especially at the keyway. Maintenance techs thought the units sometimes seemed to be out of balance. Taking note of the forklift operator’s preferred methods, they finally realized the cause of the problems: improper handling of electric motors from the receiving dock to the storeroom and from the storeroom to the job site.

Behind-the-scenes. One of the most frequent and penalizing mechanical failures on a brewery’s packaging lines was attributed to conveyor-belt drive- and tail-roller bearings. Improper installation and lubrication and incorrect bearing types were ruled out early on. The bearings themselves then became suspect.

Packaging-line parts were kept in a storeroom near the lines. Operated by the purchasing department, it was staffed 24 hours a day as an inventory-control measure. Nobody else was allowed inside—that is until the purchasing manager granted access to a consultant.

During a failure investigation, stored conveyor bearings, many in open boxes, were found covered in rust. “Not a problem,” replied the storeroom attendant when asked about the situation. He explained that with “a little steel wool, lubricating spray, and lots of buffing” those bearings would look just like new. The problem with the brewery’s packaging-lines was solved on the spot: High humidity in the storeroom and unprotected bearings were identified as major factors in the failures.

Extreme environments. Handling and storage of spare parts is especially challenging for offshore oil- and gas-production platforms. If bouncing around on the boat trip from an on-shore warehouse to an offshore platform doesn’t contribute to early failures, improper maintenance of the stored items will. Humidity and salt air are also tough on parts.

Offshore platforms are compact, often-congested configurations of piping, pumps, motors, and compressors. Vibration in these operations—ever-present and frequently ignored—can lead to spare-parts failures. For example, when motor and pump bearings are stored near rotating equipment, vibrations created on the platform can damage them. Moreover, regular maintenance of stored spares such as rotating shafts is mandatory.

The counterfeit scourge. The spare-parts supply chain has gone global. The upside is online ordering and competitive pricing. The downside is explosive growth of the counterfeit marketplace.

Knock-off trademarks, look-alike labeling and branding, and sub-standard-quality spare parts have invaded our storerooms. These reliability time bombs include bearings, seals, nuts and bolts, pipe and hydraulic fittings, electrical/electronic components, wiring, and cables.

Monitoring your spare-parts supply chain, buying from trusted sources, and rigorously inspecting parts before placing them in a storeroom should form the basis of your organization’s spare-parts management practices.

Sometimes, the inexpensive. One spare-parts-management technique I learned from working with top NASCAR race teams over the years is to carefully inspect parts before they’re put on the shelf—especially those that can affect racecar performance. And for good reason.

In the 1990s, a race team suffered a catastrophic engine failure caused by an unlikely culprit: a three-cent nylon zip tie. When the zip tie failed, the oil line it was restraining dropped onto the alternator fan belt. It was only a matter of minutes before the engine failed due to oil streaming from the cut line.

Inexpensive spare parts are often overlooked. These tend to be commodity items where low cost shapes purchasing decisions. With many commodities, though, you get what you pay for. Be sure to consider the function of such items and the impact of their failure when making purchasing decisions.

Manage your supply chain

Paying attention to the spare-parts journey from the OEM, through distributors, into your storerooms, and on to equipment makes sound business sense. The bottom line is that proactive storeroom-management practices, coupled with supply-chain management, can eliminate most causes of spare-parts failures. MT

For more information on the management of storerooms and spare parts, see Put Efficiency in MRO Storerooms and Bob Williamson’s ISO 55000 column.

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM, and a member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the people-side of world-class maintenance and reliability in plants and facilities across North America. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

15

8:07 pm
August 9, 2016
Print Friendly

Asset Management: Don’t Overlook Spare Parts

bobmugnewBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

How spare parts are managed is an essential element in reliability and maintenance management of physical assets. It makes sense, then, for an organization’s asset-management system to address all requirements for spare-parts-management processes throughout the entire risk-posing supply chain. Here are key references to ISO-55001 clauses with my suggested questions regarding these processes.

Planning (Clause 6)

6.1 Actions to address risks and opportunities for the asset management system

  • Where are the organization’s objectives at risk due to failures of spare parts and/or spare-parts-management processes?
  • What practices should be put in place to prevent undesired effects from failures of spare parts?

6.2 Asset-management objectives and planning to achieve them

  • How should asset-management objectives within relevant organizational functions and levels be structured to include spare-parts management?
  • How should the strategic-asset-management plan address the spare-parts supply chain?

Support (Clause 7)

7.1 Resources

  • Organizational collaboration may be required to manage the spare-parts supply chain. What parts of the organization should be involved?”
  • What resources would be required to maintain reliable spare-parts-management processes?

7.2 Competence

  • What skills and knowledge are required to assure the spare-parts-management processes continue to achieve the asset-management objectives?

7.3 Awareness

  • What ensures that those involved are aware of the company policy, objectives, and plan?

7.4 Communication

  • What communication mechanisms are needed to assure effective management processes?

Operation (Clause 8)

8.1 Operational planning and control

  • What practices should be established to ensure that spare-parts-management processes are being carried out as planned?

8.2 Management of change

  • What processes are needed to ensure that any changes to the spare-parts-management processes don’t have any unintended consequences?

8.3 Outsourcing

  • How should the spare-parts supply chain outside the organization be managed to ensure that the objectives and plans are achieved?

Performance evaluation (Clause 9)

9.1 Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation

  • What elements of the spare-parts-management processes should be monitored, measured, analyzed, and evaluated?

9.2 Internal audit

  • How should an internal audit be conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and compliance of the spare-parts-management process?

9.3 Management review

  • What elements of the spare-parts-management process should be periodically reviewed by top management?

Improvement (Clause 10)

  • What corrective actions should be established to address non-conformity with the spare-parts-management processes?
  • What processes should be in place to prevent failures or identify potential failures of the spare-parts-management processes?
  • What continuous-improvement processes should be established to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the spare-parts-management processes? MT

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM, and member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the “people side” of world-class reliability and maintenance. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

The ISO 55000:2014 Asset Management Standard could play a major role in industry in the coming years. Keep up to date with our ongoing coverage of this Standard at maintenancetechnology.com/iso55k.

74

4:46 pm
July 18, 2016
Print Friendly

Uptime: Fuel Continuous Improvement with Data

bobmugnewBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Making decisions about what to improve and how to measure the rate of improvement requires a systematic use of data. But, more than raw data, data bases, or spreadsheets, it’s important to use the right data. Many organizations today are already awash in data, anticipating a tsunami of numbers, thanks to the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and, as some are forecasting, the Internet of Everything. Professor Patrick Wolfe, executive director of the University College of London’s Big Data Institute noted, “The rate at which we’re generating data is rapidly outpacing our ability to analyze it.”

Data’s dark side emerges when unfiltered information is used as a threat, a smoke screen, or to obscure the facts. So it’s easy to see why some view data as a not-too-pleasant four-letter word.

Data alone can easily elicit anxiety, boredom, fear, sensory overload, and, in some cases, even excitement. Today’s business leaders must find ways to make data more user friendly to be successful in reliability/maintenance, in operations, and ultimately to the benefit of their organizations, their customers, and their stakeholders.

When organizations actually begin using their data, when they make data actionable for the benefit of the business, the employees and their customers all experience the bright side of data. Data is the foundation for eliminating problems and improving organizational performance.

What is data anyway?

When we delve into data we find digital data, bits and bytes, numbers and decimal fractions, text, alphanumerics, and mathematical symbols. Whatever the data looks like it is actually representing certain conditions or objects—and it is limitless.

Output from a machine sensor is also called data. This can be very useful, redundant, irrelevant, or totally useless. But, it’s still data. Real-time data is on-line. Archived data is off-line.

Amassing data for data’s sake can be a futile effort. It’s what we do with the data that’s most important—turning data into actions through smart, informed decisions.

Let’s take a quick look at one organization’s recent data-discovery journey. Production and labor data are collected by machine operators on tickets and forms, then keyed by others into a master database. To make the information more useable, data is printed out in spreadsheets. Some is then converted into graphs for reports or used to measure progress toward defined business goals.

Data collection continues with scrap production and material waste measurements. Quality data is collected from multiple sources for two separate reports—production defects and customer complaints. The defects are identified and categorized by QC inspectors through random inspections. Customer complaints are supplied by those who run a customer-feedback process.

Production-machine downtime is also written on sheets with a duration and a reason and later summarized in spreadsheets by department.

Maintenance work orders also capture machine work, problems, repairs, parts used, and labor.

Most data is looked at separately and the improvements are targeted by departments. The results are narrowly focused actions that lead to slow gains and short-lived improvements. There can be more. There must be more.

Make data actionable

Let’s make data actionable. Data used to chart a path for continuous improvement and measure progress along the way is essential to business success. But it doesn’t start with data.

The key element in business improvement is asking the right questions. Andreas Weigend, former chief scientist of Amazon.com and the author of more than 100 scientific papers on the application of machine-learning techniques said it best: “You have to start with a question, not with the data.”

Let’s look at an example for improving an organization’s performance in an evolving continuous-improvement work culture:

Big opportunity. Start by focusing on improving something that is very important to the organization: Where is the organization most at risk, where are failures most penalizing, where could breakthrough improvements be revolutionary to business success? These opportunities for improvement can be expressed as dire needs, a burning platform, response to regulatory issues, market changes, balance sheets, or changes in the organization due to buy-outs, mergers, or acquisitions.

Whatever the reason, start by defining the big opportunity for improving your organization’s performance. Specific opportunities for focused improvement are then defined. Be prepared to answer the question: Why are we doing this?

Right data. Identify and gather the right data. From where does the data come? Is the information easy to access? Is the data reliable and trustworthy? In the early years of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) we learned that machine performance data should be collected and analyzed by those people closest to the machine, the source of the data, and often the source of improvement. With the explosive rate of the IIoT, much of the data will likely come directly from the machines and equipment.

Information. Ask what the data is telling you. Here is where the improvement teams question the relationships among production efficiency losses, unplanned machine downtime, quality defects, customer complaints, scrap rates, and maintenance work (labor and parts). These collective data are now the information that guides improvement.

Knowledge. By connecting the information from the combined data sets, the improvement team can look for connections to the big opportunity for improvement. Armed with the knowledge between the information and the big opportunity for improvement, the improvement team is prepared to begin making improvements that will benefit the organization in a notable way.

Action. Develop a bias for action. Data analysis can be an attractive end to some. To others, it’s analysis paralysis. But, taking purposeful action is what gets things done in the organization on the plant floor. Action begins with root-cause analysis to determine the connections between what was learned from the data and the causes of poor (and successful) performance. Action continues with the corrective actions to address the root causes and putting countermeasures in place to eliminate the cause, or at least to minimize the penalizing effects.

Wisdom. Nurture the individual, team, and organizational learning that takes place from the specific improvement process. Ask the question: Are there similar problems that could be identified and eliminated in this manner? The wisdom to leverage additional improvements with the same body of knowledge is a powerful step in creating a culture of continuous improvement.

Creative/collaborative people and machines. Weaving together all six of these steps will result in an essential organization-wide behavior that I call Creative/Collaborative People & Machines. “Creative” meaning new ways of using data as a foundation for purposeful improvement. “Collaborative” is two-fold: People from different parts of the organization working together to make data a tool for continuous improvement and machines providing data that people use to improve performance.

Data is the fuel that drives the continuous-improvement engine and tells us how well it performs. Let’s find ways to make the right data actionable for the good of the organization and its employees, customers, community, and owners. MT

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM, and a member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the people-side of world-class maintenance and reliability in plants and facilities across North America. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

78

10:14 pm
June 13, 2016
Print Friendly

Uptime: A Crime Against Machines

bobmugnewBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Dispatcher: “Hello. This is 9-1-1 what’s your emergency?”

Caller: “I don’t know how it happened but my machine… it just quit. Please help!”

Dispatcher: “What’s the machine doing now?”

Caller: “I don’t know! It just made a loud noise and stopped! Like it’s dead!”

Dispatcher: “Is there any sign of movement? “

Caller: “It’s hard to tell for sure. I’m just a machine operator. But the panel lights are still glowing!”

Dispatcher: “That may be a good sign. Is there anything else you can see?”

Caller: “Oh, this looks bad! There’s fluid spraying from the back of the machine. It’s all over and I can’t stop it!”

Dispatcher: “Back away from the machine. An EMT is on the way to your location now.”

Caller: “Please hurry! I don’t know how much longer we can wait!”

Granted, the above doesn’t seem like a typical maintenance trouble call. But what if crimes against machines were actually handled the same way as people-related crimes?

What if mortally wounding a machine were a crime that had to be investigated? Let’s continue…

Dispatcher: “EMT James, what’s your 20?”

EMT: “This is James. I just arrived. Production supervisors and managers are everywhere, pointing fingers, waving their fists at what looks like a first responder… a ‘para-mechanic.’ Oh no!”

Dispatcher: “Repeat.”

EMT: “James here [winded from running]. I just inspected the scene the best I could. Hemorrhaging fluid at the back of the machine. This is serious. We don’t have much time! Looks like it blew a main seal or pressure hose.”

Dispatcher: “What do you need from Central Shop?”

EMT: “James here. Five gallons of hydraulic fluid, main seal part number QM-29145578, pressure hose QM-854132, filter QM-2985-1. But please, we really need crowd control STAT. Got a 10-34 starting. Supervisors and managers verbally abusing the para-mechanic and coming after me… shouting something about ‘got to get this thing fixed NOW…truck’s waiting for these parts… you’re costing us thousands of dollars a minute!’”

Dispatcher: “Crowd control EMS [emergency maintenance superhero] is on the way. Two minutes out.”

(silence… 30 minutes pass)

EMT: “James to Dispatch.”

Dispatcher: “I’m here, James. Whatcha’ need?”

EMT: “We lost it. Couldn’t stop the hemorrhaging… wrong hose. Did all we could on scene. Will be transporting critical parts back to Central Shop. Send a flat-bed. Got plenty of help here. 10-36?”

Dispatcher: “Sorry about that. Will get the flat-bed out STAT. 10-36 is 10:25 a.m.”

EMT: “Thanks for your help on this one. James out.”

A post-mortem

EMT James had his hands full with a dying machine and a verbally abused para-mechanic, not to mention his boss, the EMS, and a crowd of production folks wanting someone to blame. James suspected he’d get the nod, but his boss, too? This could get very nasty.

The machine parts were back at Central Shop—being analyzed by two OEM techs that had raced to the site. One of them disassembled the hydraulic pump. Parts were cleaned, measured, bagged, tagged. The damaged hose was next. The other tech started on the old filter. After about 10 minutes, however, the one with the hose began whispering loudly to his associate.Word spread. A verdict was imminent.

The production personnel gathered in Central Shop looked as though they wanted to hang someone. The EMS was there, as was the para-mechanic. James and other EMTs were close by.

Silence fell over the crowd as the OEM techs approached the bench covered in bagged-and-tagged pump parts, the damaged hose, and a cut-up filter. Once there, they announced that, after careful investigation, they had eliminated the pump as the problem. “It was perfect.” James was relieved. He had rebuilt that unit just the week before.

The techs continued: The filter, while dated with a marker as being changed a week before, showed signs of discoloration. “But,” they said, “that was normal.”

“The true culprit,” one explained, “was the hose.” His tone was neither accusatory nor blaming. James and his EMS boss wondered what the deal was. They didn’t have to wait long for an answer.

The OEM techs inserted a high-intensity light into one end of the bent hose and held it up for all to see. At that point, a bright glow began to come through a small slit. A cut hose, the investigators announced, with a degree of satisfaction. Their job was finished.

“Just order a new hose, and let’s get this machine running again,” directed the production manager. But the investigation was not really over. More investigators had arrived.

The true cause of death

Due to the large financial loss from this single incident, a CSI (Capital Situation Inquisitors) team was dispatched. Preventing such losses was a top priority of the company. This team was known for quickly getting to the root cause and identifying countermeasures to prevent recurrences. It soon transported the cut hose back to the failed machine—the scene of the crime. The inspectors were mystified by what they saw. The machine had been removed, relocated, reconfigured, and the mess cleaned up. Not a single piece of evidence could be found.

It was then that the CSI team looked closely at the slit in the hose: smooth, not jagged, not abraded. Inside both ends of the cut, however, they could see small bits of yellow paint. After talking with the machine operator who survived the incident un-blamed, the team had its answer.

The root cause of the catastrophe was determined to be a newly designed prototype cutting-tool rack sitting near the back of the machine at the time of the incident. The rack had tipped over, and a large cutter coated with yellow paint fell on the floor. Without alerting anyone else to the incident or checking for any fallout from it, the operator simply cleaned up the mess and went back to work. No process was in place to do otherwise.

Crimes against machines, especially the most critical ones that put a business at risk when they fail, need to be quickly, but adequately, investigated, causes identified, and corrective actions taken to prevent future failures. Does your site have processes in place to do this and are they appropriately communicated? MT

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM, and a member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the people-side of world-class maintenance and reliability in plants and facilities across North America. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

22

9:42 pm
June 13, 2016
Print Friendly

ISO 55000: Here’s a Book Worth Reading

1606ciso01p

In addition to its contents, the extensive index makes this book a valuable resource for those working with ISO 55000.

By Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Scanning the Internet, as I so often do for news and views on asset management, including as it applies to ISO 55000, I recently came across a book titled Physical Asset Management, 2nd Edition, by Nicholas Anthony John Hastings (Springer Intl. Publishing AG, Basel, Switzerland.) As the article headline notes, it’s very much “a book worth reading.”

In it, the Melbourne, Australia-based author has leveraged his 50-yr. career in engineering-asset management to produce a 540-page volume that can serve as a textbook, a reference book, and a comprehensive introduction to ISO 55000. As its 29 chapters unfold, this asset-management body of knowledge weaves in crucial footnotes that reference specific ISO 55001 clauses. The final chapter provides a cross-referenced introduction to ISO 55000:2014.

Specifics

Personnel at any level and at any point on an asset-management journey—be they new to the field, experienced end users, consultants, or suppliers to industry—will find value in this well-designed, easy-to-use reference. Geared to answer many common and not-so-common questions, the book’s major sections include:

  • General Introduction
  • Acquisition and Development of Assets
  • Managing In-Service Assets
  • General Management Considerations
  • Technical Areas
  • Financial Analysis
  • ISO 55000 Standard

But don’t be fooled about the quality and comprehensiveness—or possible lack thereof—of a technical book with only seven sections. Hastings’ amazingly thorough table of contents spans 23 pages. This, along with a finely detailed index, help make the book an outstanding resource for physical-asset-management aficionados of all stripes.

Individuals who are just embarking on asset-management journeys will find the author’s examples from a variety of industries to be quite useful. Each of the chapters ends with self-assessments and case exercises, based on a number of industrial settings, that support readers in refining their knowledge.

Remember, though, the subject of asset management is not new. Its already huge worldwide body of knowledge is growing rapidly. The first edition of Hastings’ book was published in 2010. As reviewed here, the second edition’s updating and cross-referencing to ISO 55001 clauses in 2014 benefits readers in two ways: specific footnote references and summary cross-reference figures and/or tables in the final chapter.

Among other things, a section outlining a Strategic Asset Management Plan (SAMP), as described in ISO 55001, clause 4.4, provides some particularly important insights. The Functional Gap Analysis in Chapter 29 offers a means for organizations to compare their current asset-management systems with those specified by the clauses in ISO 55001.

If you’re someone who wants to learn more about and keep abreast of issues related to ISO 55000, I highly recommend Physical Asset Management, 2nd Edition, by Nicholas Anthony John Hastings.

Whether you’re a top manger, department leader, practitioner, or student of the topic, consider this publication to be a must-have for your asset-management library. It’s available through most major online booksellers or by downloading directly from the publisher. For more information, visit springer.com. MT

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM and member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the “people side” of world-class maintenance and reliability in plants and facilities across North America. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

52

4:35 pm
May 16, 2016
Print Friendly

Uptime: Rules, Standards, And Mainstream 2016

bobmugnewBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

The Eventful Group, Syracuse, NY, is hosting another U.S. Mainstream Conference this month. If past installments of this series are any indication, Mainstream 2016 in The Woodlands, TX (Houston) will exceed expectations. Scheduled for May 22 to 25, its focus blends maintenance with operations and reliability and offers opportunities for all professionals in our arena to learn what’s new, validate what we’re already doing, and network with peers (and would-be peers) for a continuing dialogue. From a personal standpoint, the photo of a Formula 1 (F1) racecar on the cover of the conference brochure is what sparked this “Uptime” column.

Some readers may be familiar with my NASCAR race-team studies and how the findings permeate my teachings. NASCAR’s approach to racing, however, varies greatly from that of Formula 1. The two motorsports organizations have vastly different rules when it comes to designing, building, operating, and maintaining vehicles that compete in their respective circuits. Such rules serve as “standards” for how things get done in these arguably dissimilar racing businesses and, accordingly, help explain why a 2.3-sec. pit stop in F1 and a 10.5-sec. pit stop in NASCAR can both be considered superior. That said, let’s think about rules in today’s workplace and how they restrict or ensure the way things get done.

Work rules

We see work rules defining what’s allowed and what’s not in countless plants. Many have evolved over time to improve safety and quality, control costs, and protect jobs. Some are based on regulatory requirements (safety, environmental, employment), others on certification compliance (ISO 9000, ISO 14001, ISO 55000). Over time, some are redefined to recognize new realities. Others simply preserve historical practices, leading to a “we’ve always done it that way” mindset.

Paraphrasing the Outback Steakhouse chain, let’s consider a “no rules, just right” work environment. In the worlds of manufacturing, maintenance, and facilities, “no rules” would surely imply that chaos prevails—which could never be a prescription for business success. Still, there’s a nugget hidden in plain sight in this mantra. The word “right” says it all. My thesaurus says “right” means “just, fair, correct, accurate, precise, exact, valid, established, official, absolute.” To me, these synonyms indicate there must be a rule that defines what is correct, as opposed to an implied wrong. Thus, for the sake of consistency in a “no rules, just right” work environment, we would embed standardized definitions of what right is and “how we do it here.”

On the other hand, when we consider work rules as standards for job performance, we can approach things a bit differently. If we keep thinking of such rules only as a way to preserve the status quo, we miss an opportunity to use them to promote and preserve continuous improvement. In today’s markets, new rules and standards are requirements for success in many business sectors.

New rules, just right

Standardized work, a fundamental element of continuous improvement, is often seen as restricting individual best practices. Frequently, it’s perceived as an infringement on “how I have done my work here for years.”

There are, however, thousands of examples where standardized work is successful—including in F1 and NASCAR racing. Looking closely at these motorsports, it’s clear that standardized work isn’t exclusive to their race teams’ pit crews. It permeates all phases of work, at all levels in the organizations. Some standardized work is based on conforming to the regulations of the sport. Some is devoted to preserving a best practice or proven method. And, some is leveraged in driving a relentless pursuit of perfection, i.e., 100% reliability from the way racecars are engineered to the way they are built, operated, and maintained. After all, without policies, standards, and a desire to look for better ways of doing things, we would still be living in caves and making fires to stay warm and cook   our food.

The crux of the matter—in motorsports and other industry sectors—is about more than just looking for a better way. It’s about creating the expectation of what, where, and why to improve, as well as providing the necessary resources, and having a standardized work process in place to guide such improvements. This is the responsibility of top-level management.

Leadership’s huge role

Keep in mind that where there’s no standard, there’s no improvement—only attempts to organize chaos to temporarily minimize penalizing effects. This is why support from the top is so important.

Leadership is a critical success factor in the quest for standardizing a best practice or the way we make sustainable improvements. Management plays a huge role by leading the way to business success, improving the quality of work life, and creating expectation of continuous improvement. Standardization at all levels, in turn, guides how work and improvements are accomplished. A plan and a process for continuous improvement, whether guided by a business policy, a strategic plan, or business goals, must also be standardized.

Continuous improvement should result in benefits to the business and the employees. Leading continuous improvement from the very top of the organization keeps the efforts focused on the needs of the business. Engaging employees in the improvement of their work processes benefits them, as well as the business.

Continuous-improvement leadership, from the very top levels to the front lines of an organization, requires a set of habits that engages employees in their quest for improvement. Leaders do just that: They lead people. But leaders must also manage the process of continuous improvement in the organization. A continuous-improvement work culture, based on standardized work, cannot be delegated to a facilitator, a consultant, or a department of continuous improvement. This form of delegation often results in a predominance of improvement events rather than a sustainable improvement culture.

Suggestions for conference attendees

For readers who are attending Mainstream 2016 in The Woodlands, TX — or any upcoming technical conferences around the world for that matter, Mainstream or otherwise — I offer these standardized work-process suggestions:

  • Share who you are, what you do, and what you know.
  • Learn something new that could improve your workplace, your job, and your mindset.
  • Share what you learned with your peers and your leaders, then give it a try. MT

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM, and a member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the people-side of world-class maintenance and reliability in plants and facilities across North America. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

208

6:53 pm
April 12, 2016
Print Friendly

Uptime: Asset Reliability and Costs — Take a Life-Cycle Approach

bobmugnewBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Fundamental, early-design-phase decisions set the stage for life-cycle asset reliability and costs in plants. How new physical assets, i.e., equipment, systems, and facilities, are designed can be a testament to engineering prowess and/or observing the awesome, life-long performance of other assets—or neither. In many cases, though, budgetary constraints and construction/installation shortcuts can limit reliability and increase life-cycle costs. The result is high periods of unreliable operation, added maintenance, and modifications and workarounds to make the assets perform as needed.

What if the elements of life-cycle asset reliability and costs are unknown, not addressed, or ignored in initial-project conceptual definition and design? Chances are pretty good that reliability, operating and maintenance budgets, and planned asset life would all be a huge gamble. While the project could come in on schedule and under budget, is that what defines business success?

Conversely, what if there were an overall template or a management system that outlined and specified all elements important to the business, short- and long-term, over an asset’s life cycle? Chances are pretty good that the reliability, operating and maintenance costs, and planned life of the equipment, system, or facility would contribute, by any measure, to business success.

Here are five big questions to help us begin thinking about establishing a life-cycle physical-asset management system. Use them with your site’s top-management team, engineering group, and/or operations and maintenance leadership.

  1. What are your physical assets supposed to do in support of the organization’s goals?
  2. What physical assets put the achievement of the organization’s goals most at risk?
  3. What processes are in place to assure that these physical assets perform as expected throughout their planned life cycle?
  4. What processes are missing that may be preventing these physical assets from performing as expected throughout their planned life cycle?
  5. What are the life-cycle physical-asset management processes that should be established to guarantee the answer to the first question (“organization’s goals”) is predictably and consistently assured?

This is exactly what the ISO 55000:2014 Asset Management Standard is asking organizations to define: an asset-management system that covers the entire life cycle of physical assets.

According to ISO 55000:2014, “An asset-management system is a set of interrelated and interacting elements of an organization, whose function is to establish the asset-management policy and asset-management objectives, and the processes, needed to achieve those objectives. An asset-management system is used by the organization to direct, coordinate and control asset-management activities.” (ISO 55000:2008, 2.4.3 & 2.5.1)

With such a system in place, a project team would be responsible for executing and held accountable each step of the way for assuring that the organization’s goals are met—even with regard to its most-at-risk physical assets.

compressor station to deliver water for iron ore beneficiation

The life-cycle reliability and costs of equipment, systems, and facilities are essentially set by decisions made during the early design phases of these assets.

Life-cycle reliability

From a reliability and cost perspective, the life cycle of a physical asset can be divided and sub-divided into numerous phases and activities. For purposes of simplicity and brevity, let’s highlight four major ones and look at elements of each that have a direct impact on cost and reliability.

Project Design Phase. Management of a new physical-asset project, be it related to equipment, systems, or facilities, requires a team of highly qualified and specialized thinkers to focus on the foundations for life-cycle reliability and costs. The project-team leadership must understand and internalize “life-cycle thinking” throughout the Project-Design phase. Remember, 95% of life-cycle costs are determined during this phase (“Uptime,” March 2016 MT).

In this phase, life-cycle reliability- and cost-critical elements required to assure the new design will perform as expected include:

  • goals of the organization, i.e., financial (P&L), longevity of the assets, go/no-go criteria
  • operations concept, maintenance concept, technical/automation/software concepts, personnel/staffing levels, financial targets
  • management activities, i.e., project management, engineering design, construction, installation, start-up/commissioning, operations, maintenance, purchasing, logistics, spare parts, training
  • engineering design, operability engineering reviews, maintainability engineering reviews, reliability engineering reviews
  • documentation, i.e., detailed engineering drawings, diagrams, schematics, specifications, and calibrations.

(Note: Given the activities in the Design Phase listed above, it is essential that top-level operations and maintenance management be involved.)

Acquisition-Construction Phase. The Acquisition-construction phase involves putting the detailed design into action from procurement to building and installation to startup/commissioning. A number of the activities that influence this phase were initially defined in and influenced by the Design Phase. The Acquisition-Construction Phase is strengthened by the involvement of operations, industrial engineering, and maintenance plant-floor leadership.

In this phase, life-cycle reliability- and cost-critical elements required to assure the new design will perform as expected include:

  • design engineering handoff to industrial, manufacturing, and plant engineering personnel
  • construction, installation, start-up/commissioning
  • identification of pre-startup maintenance requirements
  • development of operations and maintenance work methods
  • definitions of job skills and knowledge requirements
  • production control, maintenance control systems (CMMS, EAM)
  • plant engineering, maintenance, spare parts, QA/QC, material handling, training facilities
  • critical spare parts, consumables, inventory levels, management systems
  • documentation, i.e., detailed machine drawings, diagrams, schematics, specifications, calibrations, operations instructions, maintenance and repair instructions, troubleshooting charts, bills of materials
  • initial workforce recruiting, screening, hiring, on-boarding, training.

Operation-Maintenance Phase. This is the longest asset life-cycle phase. While the Project and Construction Phases may have been successful, it is the Operation-Maintenance Phase that proves the concept over and over again. This is also the phase where the asset-management system endures.

In this phase, life-cycle reliability- and cost-critical elements required to assure the new design will perform as expected include:

  • on-going workforce development, i.e., recruiting, screening, hiring, on-boarding, training standards
  • maintenance and repair work processes, i.e., planned, preventive, predictive, overhaul, repair, unplanned repair standards
  • spare-parts management, inventory-control standards
  • data acquisition, analysis, reporting systems standards.

Decommissioning-Disposal-Restoration Phase. Think of this as an end-of-life phase that encompasses decisions and actions regarding the next steps for the assets. It can be as involved as decommissioning and disposal of hazardous materials and facilities or as simple as surplus or scrap sales. There may also be cases where the assets or sub-components and major equipment items can be reconditioned, restored, or repurposed.

Where are you now?

Life-cycle reliability, costs, and asset management are all highly interrelated and interconnected. That said, achieving your organization’s business goals in a consistent manner is dependent on an asset-management system that establishes and deploys the policy and objectives—along with the processes necessary to achieve those objectives.

Planning new projects? Great: You’re in the Project-Design or Acquisition-Construction Phases.

Already in the Operation-Maintenance Phase? Don’t worry: It’s not too late to begin your life-cycle asset management journey. Pay attention to the elements listed for this phase. In the meantime, look back at elements of the previous phases and begin fleshing them out with an effective asset-management system in mind. MT

Bob Williamson, CMRP, CPMM, and a member of the Institute of Asset Management, is in his fourth decade of focusing on the people-side of maintenance and reliability in plants and facilities across North America. Contact him at RobertMW2@cs.com.

Navigation