Archive | ISO55000

3

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.

49

7:18 pm
April 11, 2016
Print Friendly

ISO 55000: Grab These Asset Management Resources

bobmugnew

By Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Details of the ISO 55000:2014 Asset Management Standard continue to spread. To recap: In the maintenance and reliability arena, “assets” are typically physical, i.e., equipment, systems, processes, facilities, buildings, and so forth. True life-cycle management of such assets, through their development and deployment, operation and maintenance, and eventual decommissioning, is an organization-wide endeavor led from the top. As maintenance and reliability professionals, our role should be to coach peers and upper management on the breadth and depth of this pursuit. This month’s “Uptime” column discusses some critical elements that must be considered to achieve reliability and cost goals over the life of an asset.

Fortunately, resources to help us understand associated concepts and activities are within our grasp—online. The following three documents are good examples. Used together, they can help decision-makers understand the fundamentals and requirements of ISO 55000.

Asset Management Anatomy

The Institute of Asset Management (IAM), Bristol, UK, developed the Asset Management Anatomy (v. 3, Dec. 2015) to provide an appreciation of asset management: What it is, what it can achieve, the scope of the discipline, and descriptions of the underlying concepts and philosophy. Readers will find this publication especially helpful in growing their own understanding of the field, as well as in introducing a new way of thinking about asset-management systems in the context of entire value-producing-resource life-cycles. Among other things, sections/topics include:

  • asset-management models and management system
  • why does asset management matter
  • who does asset management
  • asset management subjects.

IAM Members and Affiliates can download the Anatomy document for free. Non-members will need to become Affiliates (at no charge) to download the PDF. Learn more at theIAM.org/AMA.

Asset Management Landscape

Published by the Global Forum on Maintenance and Asset Management (GFMAM), Zurich, the Asset Management Landscape (2nd Edition, Mar. 2014) is a tool that promotes a common global approach. It includes a number of conceptual models, a list of asset-management subjects and principles, and a framework for describing best practices, maturity, and standards. Among other things, sections include:

  • components of the knowledge and practices area
  • asset-management fundamentals
  • GFMAM asset-management landscape subjects
  • asset-management concepts and models.

Download the publication for free at gfmam.org.

IAM Self-Assessment Methodology

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.

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.

The Self Assessment Methodology (SAM) (v. 2.0, SAM+, June 2015) allows organizations to assess their capability across either the 28 elements of BSI PAS 55:2008 or the 27 sub-clauses of ISO 55001:2014, including strengths and weaknesses, deficiencies, and areas of excellence. It provides considerable insight into the development of action plans for asset-management improvement, and also lets organizations track such improvements.

This SAM is divided into two parts: “General Guidance Notes” and an Excel spreadsheet “SAM Tool” (SAM+). The tool provides assessment results based on an IAM Maturity Group scale of 0 to 3 (the level of compliance with ISO 55001). Among other things, sections/topics include:

  • context and objectives of the SAM+ tool
  • users and usage of the SAM+ tool
  • questions, Level 3 criteria, and associated guidance
  • alignment of questions with BSI PAS 55:2008
  • alignment of questions with ISO 55001:2014
  • alignment of Level 3 criteria with the asset-management landscape.

Download the SAM “General Guidance Notes” document for free from the IAM website. The “SAM Tool” (SAM+) is available only to paying IAM members. Learn more at theIAM.org/join. 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: RobertMW2@cs.com.

84

4:57 pm
February 9, 2016
Print Friendly

Uptime: A Top Management Standard — The Missing Link

bobmugnewBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

The term “top management” in the ISO55000:2014 Asset Management Standard is referenced throughout the documents. In fact, top management has the overall leadership responsibility to establish the Asset Management System, as specified in the ISO55001 requirements.

But, the leadership responsibility of the very top of the organization, in pursuit of best-in-class operations and maintenance, is not new by any means. How the business’ equipment, machinery, and facilities operate has a direct impact on the balance sheet. So, why is it so difficult for top management to play a key leadership role?

Maintenance traditions

Maintenance of equipment, machinery, and facilities has been the responsibility of a plant engineering or maintenance department for generations. New maintenance methods and technologies have evolved to solve problems, improve maintenance efficiency, and ultimately keep the physical assets running smoothly. The maintenance department became one of many individual departments—organizational silos—with an accompanying charter and budget. Organizational finance and accounting put maintenance into an overhead expense category.

Traditionally, top management’s responsibility was to boost revenues and reduce expenses to meet the profit goals for the business. Naturally, top management became conditioned to treat maintenance as an overhead expense. As a result, the maintenance department often became financially constrained.

New equipment, machinery, and facilities projects frequently excluded operations and maintenance involvement. Decisions were often made based on functionality and cost trade-offs. Upon completion of the “project phase” the new physical assets were turned over to operations and maintenance. Top management applauded the project that came in under budget and ahead of schedule. Then, top management expected operations and maintenance to control their costs for the remaining life of the new assets.

Life-cycle costs

According to Fabrycky and Blanchard (1991) “A major portion of the projected life-cycle cost of a product, system, or structure is traceable to decisions made during the conceptual and preliminary design.” In other words, a major portion of the maintenance costs and levels of process reliability are established during the design and acquisition phases.

The concepts of physical asset life-cycle cost and total cost of ownership are not new by any means. Military applications were developed back in the 1960s, and industrial models began emerging in the early 1970s.

How often should top management involve operations and maintenance in the new physical-asset project team? How often have operations and maintenance actually been involved? Top management sets the overall project expectations.

Top management and life cycles

Since the introduction of the ISO55000 Asset Management Standard in 2014, a new light has been shed on the subjects of asset management, reliability, organization-wide life-cycle management, and the role of “top management.” But, the topic is not really new. Here are a few historical insights to ponder from an old book in my library (Husband, 1976):

  • “There is a glaring need for an integrated approach to physical-asset management.”
  • “It requires an appropriate strategy of management, at board level, to make it a success.”
  • “It is necessary to lower the traditional boundaries between the design, maintenance, finance, production, and other functions.”
  • “At the design stage of the process, the designer is disciplined to design out maintenance and design in reliability.”
  • “The designer will also, of course, be encouraged to design in maintainability where maintenance cannot be completely eliminated.”
  • “The idea is that communications between design, production, maintenance, and other key functions will be such that ideas and hard results will flow formally and consistently around the ‘system.’”
  • “All of the activities involved—specification, design, purchasing, commissioning, operating, maintenance, replacement—are already being carried out in industry. One of the most important tasks… is to show how (these) familiar individual activities can be combined or coordinated to achieve greater overall efficiency in the pursuit of common (business) objectives.”
  • “No new component skills are involved. The emphasis is entirely on coordinating the existing skills of a firm’s engineers, accountants, and specialist managers.”
  • “Incompetently or badly planned installation leaves a long legacy of operating problems.…insist on the use of systematic methods of managing the installation project.”

These are all insights from what was known as “Terotechnology” in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Then, in the 1980s, life-cycle management with top-management commitment became central to the success of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM).

In the book Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance (Nakajima, 1988), the concepts of life-cycle costs (LCC) are introduced at the onset. Later in the book, Dr. Benjamin Blanchard’s Life-Cycle Cost (1978), principles are cited for TPM Step 11: Develop Early Equipment Management Program—“Virtually 95-percent of life-cycle cost is determined at the design stage.”

Dr. Blanchard further explained the important relationship of LCC principles in the introduction to Nakajima’s book (1989) TPM Development Program. Blanchard stated that upward of 75% of the life-cycle costs are attributable to operational and maintenance activities.

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), as defined by the Japan Institute for Plant Maintenance in the 1980s, specified that the role of the “top management of the company” was to announce that TPM will be introduced in the plant. “Top management must incorporate TPM into the basic company policy and establish concrete goals. TPM can succeed only with the commitment of top management.”

TPM is yet another example of top management sanctioning an organization-wide initiative to improve the life-cycle effectiveness of their production equipment.

Engaging top management

Establishing an asset-management system must be a strategic decision, a commitment, made by top management. “Top management” refers to the individual or group that controls an organization from the highest level. This could be the board of directors, the chief executive officer, and the other C-level executives.

History has shown that this level of top management often has a difficult time getting behind an initiative that spans the life cycle of an asset, a period of time that typically outlives their tenure in office. History has also shown that top management seems to have difficulty understanding the value of maintenance in the asset life cycle and the impact that the design phase has on maintenance costs.

In this very brief review of asset-management initiatives, known by various names, the ever-present reference to the essential role of “top management” is stressed. We all should know that, without real top-management commitment, asset-management initiatives will continue to be misunderstood as yet another maintenance program, or receive little of the organization-wide, multi-department collaboration required to fundamentally establish a life-cycle asset-management system.

In the absence of an international standard for a “Top Management Management System” we must learn to collaborate, to educate, and to aggressively pursue life-cycle asset management as the right thing to do. It won’t be very long before the traditional approaches to caring for our equipment, machines, and facilities become highly ineffective. 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.

References:

Benjamin S. Blanchard, Design and Manage to Life Cycle Cost, M/A Press, 1978, Oregon.

W.J. Fabrycky and Benjamin S. Blanchard, Life Cycle Cost and Economic Analysis, Prentice Hall 1991, NJ.

T.M. Husband, Maintenance Management and Terotechnology, Saxon House 1976, England.

Seiichi Nakajima, Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance, Productivity Press (English printing) 1988, JIPM (Japanese) 1984.

Seiichi Nakajima, Editor, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) Development Program, Productivity Press (English printing) 1989, JIPM (Japanese) 1982.

74

8:57 pm
February 8, 2016
Print Friendly

Asset Management And ISO 55000

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 2.55.48 PMBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

This new column, and a dynamic body of content at maintenancetechnology.com/iso55k, will explore the intent, issues, concerns, and questions relating to the ISO 55000:2014 Asset Management Standard. Over time, it will reflect insight from a number of sources, including emerging asset-management practitioners and other experts in the field of asset management.

This column and the website will address these burning questions:

  • What is ISO 55000:2014?
  • Why should you be concerned about ISO 55000?
  • Do you have to become certified in ISO 55000?
  • What is asset management?
  • What is the role of maintenance?
  • Where do reliability programs fit?
  • Is ISO 55000 just another new maintenance program?

ISO 55000:2014

Many readers are familiar with the ISO 9000 Quality Management Standard and ISO 14000 Environmental Management Standard. These, and many other international standards, are developed and published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) based in Geneva, Switzerland (iso.org).

The ISO 55000:2014 Asset Management Standard (issued in late January 2014) defines the requirements for a “management system for managing assets,” also known as a management standard for an asset-management management system. The new Standard is not a standard for how to manage assets.

While ISO 55000 is a general topic and current buzzword in industry, keep in mind that the criteria for certification are not contained in a document entitled ISO 55000:2014. The Standard is not confined to a single publication, but instead is reflected in separate and related documents, often referred to as the “suite of ISO 55000 Standards” or “ISO 5500X Standards.” They are:

  • ISO 55000:2014—Asset Management Overview, Principles, and Terminology
  • ISO 55001:2014—Asset Management–Management Systems–Requirements
  • ISO 55002:2014—Asset Management–Management Systems–Guidelines for the Application of ISO-55001

While the three separate publications are available for purchase from a number of sources, the ISO website provides these online browsing versions at no cost:

‘Assets’ in context

A quick review of ISO 55000:2014 reveals that the term asset (in the context of the standard) refers to more than what we typically consider as physical assets, i.e., facilities and equipment. ISO 55000, 2.3 defines an asset as “an item, thing, or entity that has potential or actual value to an organization.” This can be interpreted as intellectual property, real estate, software, works of art, or literally anything that an organization depends on to achieve its goals. (Going forward, this column will concentrate on types of assets commonly found in operations, including physical plants, buildings, equipment and processes, utility equipment and systems, servers and networks, control systems, and related assets.)

Assets within an organization (not the organization, company, plant, or facility) are the focus of ISO-55001 certification. ISO 55001 is not about certifying asset-management methods and programs but is the system for managing assets throughout the entire life cycle of the targeted assets.

To be clear, asset-management systems can also focus on individual assets, groups of assets, types of assets, asset systems, or asset portfolios across the business as a whole. This means that organizations can pursue ISO-55001 certification for an individual value-adding asset, an important production system, and/or a type of asset that is common across the organization and at various locations.

A system view

The ISO 55001:2014 Asset Management Standard describes the elements of a system for asset management and serves as the criteria for certification. Note that this Standard spans the entire life cycle of the assets: design, engineering, procurement, installation, startup, operation, maintenance, restoration, decommissioning, and disposal. It’s designed to assure the organization and its stakeholders, regulators, insurance underwriters, and investors that the organization has a system in place to manage their assets in ways that deliver value aligned with the organization’s objectives.

While you may now understand what ISO 55000 is, it’s just as important to understand what it is not. To be precise, the Standard doesn’t specify the process, programs, or best practices for actually managing assets. Neither is it a “standard for the management of assets.” Even though maintenance and reliability processes, programs, and best practices fit within ISO 55000, the new Standard is definitely not about maintenance and reliability.

Managing risk

The intent of ISO 55001:2014 is to specify the criteria for a system to manage an organization’s assets in ways that align value with the organization’s objectives. All physical assets in an organization are not equal in terms of a value proposition, however. Some are clearly more critical to achieving the objectives of the business than others. Likewise, some assets present a higher degree of risk to business goals than others. 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.

1889

7:13 pm
September 28, 2014
Print Friendly

Uptime: TPM — A Foundation for Asset-Management Systems, Part II

0914bobwilliamsonmugBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

Last month’s “Uptime” column set the stage for this multi-part series by stating that if you can’t make Total Productive Maintenance work in your plant, you will surely struggle with the ISO-55000 Asset Management Standard. And while there are five basic Pillars of TPM, the most important is Improving Equipment Effectiveness by Targeting the Major Losses. As the first TPM Pillar, it serves two essential purposes: a) What to focus on; and b) how to measure progress.

This series of columns helps weave the five basic TPM Pillars together in ways that can open eyes and minds for the asset-management journey and achieve fast sustainable results along the way. In many plants, unfortunately, TPM has been boiled down to nothing more than “involving operators in the maintenance of their equipment” as a stand-alone work process. Here, the benefits of the interdependent relationships among the five basic TPM Pillars have been lost, leading to marginally sustainable results. To recap, the five basic TPM Pillars are:

  1. Improving equipment effectiveness by targeting the major losses
  2. Involving operators in the maintenance of their equipment
  3. Improving maintenance efficiency and effectiveness
  4. Training to improve skills and knowledge
  5. Early equipment management and maintenance prevention design

TPM = focused improvement

TPM is a focused-improvement strategy rather than a program to be implemented plant-wide. As an example, my September column identified Machine Z as our focal point because it is a single-point-of-failure constraint in a production process critical to business success. This means Machine Z sets the pace for the entire production process, and when it fails, the entire production process fails. While a breakdown is an obvious failure, from a reliability perspective, a functional failure occurs when Machine Z fails to perform as intended (such as a cycle time slowdown). Regardless, when Machine Z fails, it has a detrimental effect on the organization’s business goals.

Once the critical, at-risk equipment has been identified, the next step is to determine the major losses that must be targeted to improve Machine Z’s effectiveness. As discussed in last month’s column, this is where the first TPM Pillar comes into play: What is the equipment-performance data telling us about Machine Z?  The answer becomes clear when there is a process in place to collect, analyze, trend and report equipment-related performance (type, frequency, duration). The three primary equipment-effectiveness TPM loss categories include:

  • Availability Losses: Planned downtime and unplanned downtime
  • Performance Rate Losses: speed and cycle time
  • Quality (Yield) Losses: Defects, rework and scrap
  • But, don’t stop there. There are many more equipment-related loss categories. Collect, analyze, trend and report the following categories to further define the major losses:
  • Utilization time: Scheduled operating time vs. actual operating time
  • Mean time between failures (MTBF) between repairs (MTBR): Average length of time between failures/repairs
  • Mean time to repair/restore (MTTR): Average time to repair/restore operating state
  • Maintenance costs: Total period maintenance labor and parts cost; maintenance cost/unit produced

Equipment-performance data communicated in Pareto charts highlight the major loss types. Frequency of the losses will help separate chronic from sporadic (one time) losses. Duration of the losses will help determine the impact to the business goals. The business goals impacted by the major losses should dictate the priority of TPM actions based on the remaining TPM Pillars. And finally, root cause analysis will point to causes and contributing factors setting the stage for corrective actions.

TPM Pillar 2: Involving operators in the maintenance of their equipment

The second Pillar of TPM means more than merely assigning routine equipment maintenance tasks to operators. Involving operators in such task makes sense only if the tasks performed contribute to sustaining or improving equipment performance, reliability and effectiveness in ways that support the goals of the business.

The key to success comes from involving the right people, skilled in the right work processes, focusing on the right equipment components. The major losses identified in Pillar 1 (above) should guide TPM actions and measure the effectiveness of the actions, including operator tasks.

The following people should be involved in developing and deploying TPM Pillar 2 actions:

  • Operations top management
  • Operations supervisors
  • Skilled equipment operators from all shifts
  • Skilled maintenance technicians (equipment specialists)
  • Production planning & scheduling
  • Maintenance planning & scheduling
  • Equipment OEM representatives (depending on the types of losses being addressed)

TPM Pillar 3: Improving maintenance efficiency and effectiveness

Improving maintenance is a broad subject. However, TPM actions for improving maintenance efficiency and effectiveness should be focused. Again, the key to success comes from involving the right people, skilled in the right work processes, focusing on the right equipment components. The major losses identified in TPM Pillar 1 should guide and measure the effectiveness of the maintenance improvement actions.

The following people should be involved in developing and deploying TPM Pillar 3 actions:

  • Maintenance top management
  • Maintenance supervisors
  • Skilled maintenance technicians from all shifts
  • Maintenance engineers
  • Reliability Engineers
  • Maintenance planning & scheduling
  • Production planning & scheduling
  • Spare parts management
  • CMMS/EAM information specialist
  • Equipment OEM representatives

TPM Pillar 4: Training to improve skills and knowledge

While training is an often-used performance improvement process, it must be taken to a new level to achieve TPM results. All training to target the major losses should include a formal process for on-job-performance demonstrations—“qualifying” employees to perform the required tasks. Again, the results of TPM Pillar 1 should guide TPM actions and measure the effectiveness of the training actions.

The following people should be involved in developing and deploying TPM Pillar 4 actions:

  • Operations and maintenance top management
  • Human resources/Training top management
  • Trainers, instructors, on-job coaches
  • Training participants: Operators, maintainers, supervisors, technicians, et al

TPM Pillar 5: Early equipment management and maintenance prevention design

Equipment reliability and asset management spans the entire life cycle, starting in the equipment design and selection and ending in decommissioning or restoration. The fifth TPM Pillar reinforces the need to design in reliability and to develop the required work processes necessary to assure the equipment performs as intended throughout its life cycle.

The development of equipment standards, preventive maintenance, condition monitoring and operations and maintenance training are all part of TPM Pillar 5. Designing the equipment to require less maintenance (maintenance prevention) and making required maintenance easier to perform (improved efficiency and effectiveness) are essential actions of this Pillar.

The following people should be involved in developing and deploying TPM Pillar 5 actions:

  • Equipment engineering
  • Maintenance engineering
  • Reliability engineering
  • Equipment operations
  • Equipment maintenance
  • Spare parts management
  • OEM engineering/technical specialist

Putting the pieces together

The overall approach that makes TPM work is the same approach that will make ISO-55000 Asset Management work: the systematic integration of all activities that ensure the equipment (assets) are properly cared for throughout their life cycle. One such plant-floor application of TPM activities is reflected in “Standards for Equipment Maintenance” that 1) are specific to the equipment; 2) define specific roles and responsibilities; and 3) are required work processes.

Think of the “Standards for Equipment Maintenance” as containing the following equipment-specific information documented on a placard posted on the equipment:

  • Maximum response time for emergency repairs and/or corrective actions
  • Unplanned/emergency downtime incident reporting requirements
  • Root cause failure analysis completed within X days
  • Spare parts availability & locations
  • Skills & knowledge (qualifications) required to operate, maintain, repair
  • Equipment document location(s)
  • PM schedule compliance (completed within X days of due date)
  • Operator-performed maintenance requirements
  • TPM, Lean, Continuous Improvement requirements
  • And other relevant information

These “Standards for Equipment Maintenance” can also be prepared for a variety of equipment risk or criticality categories decided upon by stakeholders in the organization. The following list details examples of equipment criticality criteria:

A = Most Critical: No work-around or back-up available. Essential for production and/or health, safety, environmental requirements. Top priority, < 4 hours maximum time to restore.

B = Critical: Work-around available at a cost; does not stop the process, interruption to service is tolerable but penalizing. High priority, 4 to 6 hours maximum time to restore.

C = Necessary: Work-around and/or additional equipment available nearby but cumbersome; does not stop the process, but will have a long-term cost impact. Priority, 1 to 2 days maximum time to restore.

D = Optional: Little to no disruption to the process or the business; other qualified equipment is available and easy to implement; no short-term or long-term cost impact; an inconvenience. Emergency response not required. Routine work, restore within 1 to 2 weeks.

TPM as an asset-management system

The ISO-55000 Asset Management Standard requires that systems be established to assure consistent, accurate and reliable practices to address at-risk assets (equipment, in this case). The principles of TPM prescribe the same. The TPM Pillars outlined here provide the framework, actions, roles and responsibilities that must be defined, standardized and implemented in an interdependent fashion for both TPM and ISO-55000 Asset Management success.

The next installment in this series will expand the asset-management concepts related to the Pillars of Total Productive Maintenance and the essential, but missing, Pillars: Leadership and Work Culture. 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.

1974

9:01 pm
August 28, 2014
Print Friendly

Uptime: TPM — A Foundation for Asset-Management Systems, Part I

0914bobwilliamsonmugBy Bob Williamson, Contributing Editor

If you cannot make Total Productive Maintenance work in your plant, you will surely struggle with the ISO 55000 Asset Management Standard.

Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) is an organization-wide process for improving equipment effectiveness that was taken from the heart of what we now know as the “Toyota Production System” (TPS). TPM came to North America from the Japan Institute for Plant Maintenance (JIPM) in the mid-1980s. The TPM process gained momentum because of the way it shared equipment-maintenance responsibilities with others in organizations through fundamental “pillars.” The Pillars of TPM outlined the basic principles of the process and how they were to be deployed interdependently (they supported each other).

TPM’s basic pillars

From the onset of TPM in North America and through its first 10 years, we knew it could become the predominant equipment-maintenance strategy for the 21st century. Why? TPM offered a fresh insight to equipment maintenance and reliability that went well beyond the confines of maintenance departments’ roles and responsibilities.

TPM is not just another maintenance program. Others in the organization had to become involved because TPM focused on the entire “life cycle” of equipment–from design to operations and maintenance, and then restoration or decommissioning. The breakthrough in our thinking came when we began to truly understand the “Pillars of TPM” and how they worked together and focused on results, not merely on activities “in the hopes of improving performance.” Here are the five basic Pillars of TPM:

  1. Improving equipment effectiveness by targeting the major losses
  2. Involving operators in the maintenance of their equipment
  3. Improving maintenance efficiency and effectiveness
  4. Training to improve skills and knowledge
  5. Early equipment management and maintenance prevention design

ISO 55000 and asset-management systems

The five Pillars of TPM also formed the basis for an easy-to-understand “asset-management system” that pre-dated PAS 55 Asset Management Specification by more than 20 years, and ISO 5000 by more than 30 years. Understanding and deploying TPM as originally intended can establish a solid foundation for ISO 55000 on the plant floor and help establish an “asset management mindset” at the top management levels of the organization. Let’s explore.

The ISO 55000 (55001) Asset Management Standard released in February outlines the requirements for an “asset-management system”  (a system for managing an asset-management system). The new Standard, however, does not prescribe how to establish such a “system,” nor does it prescribe how to manage assets. At the heart of the ISO 55001 Asset Management Standard are requirements for the appropriate stakeholders to address the “at risk” assets throughout the entire asset life cycle while providing a “line of sight” from the asset-management actions to the goals and objectives of the business. Sounds pretty academic.

Here’s where TPM comes into play: It not only defines what an asset-management system is, it outlines HOW TO establish an asset-management system based upon the five TPM Pillars.

I am convinced, especially after teaching about and consulting in TPM since the early 1990s and conducting PAS 55 gap analyses since 2012, that starting true TPM can set the stage for launching an ISO 55000 mindset in an organization. I also believe that the converse is true: If you cannot successfully deploy TPM in an organization, the road to ISO 55000 certification will result in dead ends.

TPM’s most important pillar

Our step-by-step exploration of TPM as a systematic approach to asset management begins with an examination of its first and most important Pillar: “Improving equipment effectiveness by targeting the major losses.” Keep in mind that all five Pillars were designed to work together rather than stand alone–to be “interdependent” rather than independent. (The remaining TPM Pillars will be covered in future “Uptime” columns.]

Improving equipment effectiveness by targeting the major losses: The first Pillar of TPM serves two essential purposes: 1) What to focus on; and 2) how to measure progress. While the purpose of this Pillar is to “improve equipment effectiveness,” three key words in it are what make that happen: “targeting” and “major losses.”

Identifying and addressing the “major losses” provides a basis for the compelling business case for improving equipment effectiveness–the foundation for work-culture change. Major losses are just that: The equipment-related losses that have a large impact on equipment effectiveness and on the business.

Major equipment-related losses in a production process can be associated with the actual production-line equipment, other equipment in the product/process flow, utilities (i.e., electric, compressed air, water, steam, gas, etc.), and material-handling equipment. To narrow down the specific equipment focus, it’s important to first analyze the overall process flow. Start by looking for interruptions in the planned production flow rate (per hour, per shift) and the impacts on the business.

For example, let’s consider the major losses relating to a material-handling forklift compared to the single-point-of-failure machines in a production process. The forklift can stop production because materials cannot be moved to and from the production process. Chances are several other forklifts could be called into service within a short amount of time to remedy the production losses (a low-cost work-around).

But when a single-point-of-failure machine fails, there is no work-around—and production comes to a halt until the machine is repaired. The costs of parts, labor, production losses and safety incidents are significant unplanned business expenses that add to the cost-per-unit produced.

In reality, a TPM case can be made for addressing both the forklift and the single-point-of-failure machine based on the frequency and duration of the failures. The business goals, however, are more at risk when the single-point-of-failure machine in a production process fails than when a dedicated forklift fails. Accordingly, an asset-management strategy for the single-point-of-failure machine should be more robust than that of the forklift.

The plant-floor perspective of TPM

Now let’s view TPM deployment from a pragmatic, plant-floor perspective continuing with the same TPM Pillar, “Improving equipment effectiveness by targeting the major losses.”

There are three plant-floor concepts at work here: Reliability, Root Cause Analysis and Constraints (or bottlenecks).

Reliability & Root Cause: A TPM strategy uses the concepts of Reliability and Root Cause Analysis for targeting the major losses related to the single-point-of-failure machine in a production process (let’s call this Machine Z) to the point of identifying and eliminating the causes. Before we wander too far from Machine Z’s losses, we must remember what a “failure” is. If the machine does what it is intended to do in defined operating conditions for a stated period of time, it is considered reliable. If the machine ceases to do what it is intended to do, it has “failed.” All failures are not catastrophic breakdowns. A “slow-down” can be a failure too.

Constraints: Any production process flow has a constraint–an integral part of the process that sets the pace for the entire process. For example, if Machine Z, being a single point of failure in a production process, is operating at 90% of its intended cycle time, it has failed because it slows the entire production process down to its speed. Even at 90% cycle time, it has a negative business impact (i.e., interruptions to downstream flow, late product deliveries and higher cost-per-unit produced to name a few).

In this example, Machine Z becomes our TPM focus. Having determined this focus, the next step in “improving equipment effectiveness” is to group Machine Z’s “major losses” in three primary data categories. The three primary equipment-effectiveness loss categories in TPM include:

  • Availability Losses: Planned downtime and unplanned downtime
  • Performance Rate Losses: Speed and cycle time
  • Quality (Yield) Losses: Defects, rework, scrap

“Overall Equipment Effectiveness” (OEE) is often treated as a metric that factors the three loss categories (above) expressed as percentages: Availability, Performance Rate and Quality/Yield. This is where the calculated confusion comes in. Contrary to popular belief, OEE percentages are not meaningful data, and 85% OEE is not “world class.” OEE percentages do not provide the quantity, duration or nature (reasons) for the losses.

Categorizing data in ways that recordsthe quantity, duration and nature (reasons) for specific types of losses is essential to achieving rapid and sustainable bottom-line business results from TPM. Frequently, the lack of good data is the weakest link in process-reliability improvement (i.e., not having the data to turn into meaningful information and then into prioritized action items).

Focused improvement in TPM depends on having accurate and reliable data to identify the “major losses” and then to prioritize focused improvement actions. Having this accurate and reliable data as an equipment base line also serves as a way to measure progress (i.e.,  “Are our TPM actions making improvements in availability, performance rate or quality and yield?”).

TPM as an asset-management system

The ISO 55000 Asset Management Standard requires that a system be established to assure consistent, accurate, and reliable practices that address the at-risk assets (equipment in this case). The principles of TPM prescribe the same.

In applying the ISO 55000 requirement to the first TPM Pillar (“Improving equipment effectiveness by targeting the major losses”) there needs to be a documented, systematic and audited way to collect, analyze, trend and report all of the data used to prevent (or eliminate) the major losses of the most at-risk equipment. In the absence of this type of data-management system, neither TPM nor ISO 55000 Asset Management will be successful.

Future installments of this column will expand asset-management concepts to the remaining Pillars of TPM, and, possibly, OEE.  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.

815

8:16 pm
April 22, 2014
Print Friendly

From Our Perspective: Ol’ Dependable

By Ken Bannister, Contributing Editor

ken_bannisterIf you, like me, are a viewer of the many wonderful public-broadcasting TV stations that are available, you may have come across a British Broadcasting Corporation program called Heartbeat. Set in the Yorkshire countryside of the 1960s, it depicts life in a small town from the local Bobbie’s (policeman’s) perspective. I love this program because it reflects the England of my youth—and I particularly enjoy recognizing the old cars, trucks and motorcycles from yesteryear.

Yorkshire is where my father was born. Living in Lancashire, our family regularly traveled deep into the Yorkshire countryside with him, driving across the tiny roads of the Pennine hills (we called them mountains). What was then a four- to five-hour journey has been reduced to less than two hours by today’s super-slab motorway!

Growing up, I knew we were lucky to own a car: a 1950s green Morris Minor, license plate #WJA 41. (Funny how you remember such things, isn’t it?) We used to call it “Ol’ Dependable.” It wasn’t a joke. Today, we think nothing of casually jumping into our cars or trucks and driving for hours to our chosen destinations. It wasn’t like that in the good old days!

I vividly remember helping my Dad prepare “Ol’ Dependable” for our Pennine “mountain” adventures: We would change the engine oil; check the other fluids and top them off; check the fan- and generator-belt conditions and tension; pump up the tires; grease the steering and driveshaft bearing points; and check the brake linings. Then we would go for a spin. My father’s maintenance diligence, among other things, was the real reason that our car and he were both known as “Ol’ Dependable.”

Dependability is a desirable quality in a person, organization, process or machine. Dependability conjures up thoughts of trust, reliability and always being there to do the right thing. It’s an old word, not heard often enough today. That will soon change. As readers of MT&AP may already know, in February of this year, the International Standards Organization (ISO) released its first-ever world standard for asset management and asset-management systems (maintenance): ISO 55000. This standard collectively refers to Availability, Reliability, Maintainability and Maintenance Support under the heading “Dependability.”

The International Electrotechnical Vocabulary defines dependability as the “ability to perform as and when required.” Australia’s Asset Management Council expands on that definition by stating, “[dependability] is a descriptor for elements pertaining to reliability, maintainability and their myriad of sub-elements.”

It’s only fitting, therefore, that a quality maintenance department should be viewed as “Ol’ Dependable.” Furthermore, any quality maintenance or asset-management departments that build their asset-management programs utilizing a “best-practice” approach laid out in the ISO 55000 or PAS 55 standards are better able to prove their dependability through their ability to more easily assess and measure their level of maintenance support. This is achieved through tracking performance indicators that roll up into the Dependability deliverable. The key indicators are: Availability, which looks at the total percentage of time the asset is in an operational state to perform when required by a user; Reliability, which measures performance security by calculating the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)—the less failure, the longer the mean time, the more reliable the asset; Maintainability, which reflects the ease and speed at which maintenance responds to a service request, and how long it takes to restore the asset operation once a failure has occurred as measured by the Mean Time To Respond/Repair (MTTR) and the First Time Repair Quality (FTRQ).

We should all be so fortunate to be known as “Ol’ Dependable” in one or more aspects of our lives. The same holds true, if not more so, for our equipment assets. Good Luck! MT&AP

kbannister@engtechindustries.com

Navigation