Archive | Management

85

2:46 am
April 11, 2016
Print Friendly

Look System-Wide For Cost Savings

A systems approach to equipment-optimization prevents individual changes from negatively affecting downstream processes, and often yields other, possibly unnoticed saving opportunities.

A systems approach to equipment-optimization prevents individual changes from negatively affecting downstream processes, and often yields other, possibly unnoticed saving opportunities.

Evaluating equipment systems and associated processes throughout your plant can yield substantial low-hanging, waste-reduction fruit.

For a variety of obvious and not so obvious reasons, it is more important than ever for manufacturing operations to explore system-wide cost-reduction strategies. While there are numerous areas in plants where costs can be reduced, the one that provides substantial savings opportunities for any enterprise is energy consumption.

According to the Energy Information Administration, Washington, the average cost of electricity per kilowatt dropped for the industrial sector of the economy from December 2014 to December 2015. This should not, however, reduce focus on this area as a potential gold mine of cost-reduction opportunities.

As most involved in manufacturing are aware, each time energy is converted from one form to another, energy loss occurs. This, combined with loss associated with supply and distribution, accounts for a high percentage of the annual energy usage in manufacturing.

Ultrasonic leak-detection equipment can dramatically reduce the time needed to pinpoint leaks in compressed air systems, making repairs easier and more cost-effective.

Ultrasonic leak-detection equipment can dramatically reduce the time needed to pinpoint leaks in compressed air systems, making repairs easier and more cost-effective.

Identifying the need

Consider the manufacturing of forest-products: Only about half of the energy consumed by those types of operations is used directly in processes that lead to finished goods. As much as 45% of the purchased energy is wasted through generation (18%), distribution (12%), and conversion or mechanical inefficiencies (15%). Despite conventional wisdom, however, generation is not the best place to start when it comes to reducing energy waste.

Typically, cutting generation energy waste requires large capital investments that take years, sometimes decades, to recoup. Distribution and conversion, though, are ripe with low-hanging fruit. If a proper system-wide analysis is performed, these areas can yield high savings with a relatively short ROI (return on investment).

It is important to look at a system in its entirety, i.e., take a systems approach, when reviewing cost-reduction opportunities. This not only prevents a change from having a negative impact on a downstream process, it can yield indirect savings that would otherwise go unnoticed.

For example, repairing leaks in a compressed-air system may allow a redundant compressor to be idled. This cost reduction is fairly straightforward to quantify and capture. The downstream effect of repairing the leaks, however, will also yield a higher and more consistent air supply at the point of use. This could make it possible to use smaller, lighter-weight tools, resulting in more-economical replacements. Moreover, it could reduce user fatigue, resulting in increased productivity and less likelihood of repetitive-stress injuries.

Mechanical inefficiencies present a wealth of opportunities to significantly reduce energy consumption and maintenance costs with a short ROI. Many manufacturers over the past decade have taken a hard look at redesigning legacy systems with energy-efficient drop-in replacements. Often these redesigns will yield a substantial reduction in energy consumption, relative to that system, and typically will extend or eliminate maintenance intervals, further reducing costs. Belt-driven live-roller conveyors are a case in point.

Energy efficiency can be achieved and noise levels reduced by replacing conventional components with parts designed to take advantage of newer technology, as with this modular plastic chain conveyor.

Applying the approach

Many sites still use old-technology, belt-driven live-roller conveyors to move finished product to be packaged or shipped. This manufacturing standby consists of sections of horizontal cylindrical rolling elements, arranged close together in series, driven by a prime mover (typically an electric motor/gearbox combination) and a belt that causes the rollers to spin. Unfortunately, there are some downsides to this relatively simple solution.

Specifically, these types of conveyors have several points at which energy is converted from one form to another, increasing the intrinsic energy loss and reducing system efficiency. This inefficiency increases power consumption by the prime mover, driving up electricity usage and cost.

Additionally, if one section goes down due to a broken belt or failed prime mover, the preceding section is then required to push the product through the dead roller section to the next live section. This can create an overload scenario for the preceding section or, depending on what is being conveyed, a loss of product due to breakage or jamming.

An often-overlooked factor with belt-driven live-roller conveyor systems is noise. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates that a worker be exposed to no more than a weighted average of 8 hr. of 90 dBa of workplace noise per day. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends a maximum of 85 dBa exposure for any eight-hour workday. While this should not be viewed negatively, companies are required to incur the additional expense of providing personal protective equipment (PPE) to employees. This includes earplugs, if a hazardous noise environment is deemed to exist.

Retrofitting or upgrading these legacy conveyor systems offers considerable savings potential for sites. One such solution is a plastic modular chain conveyor. This system uses a series of flattened, interconnected plastic links to create a conveying surface that can handle existing turns and elevation changes found in many current live-roller conveying systems. Using a plastic modular chain immediately reduces the points of energy conversion, improving system efficiency and lowering the electrical waste, and thereby cost. Also, since the system is no longer comprised of multiple interdependent sections, the points of failure are reduced, likely improving system up-time while concurrently reducing time spent on routine maintenance.

Modular belting has the added benefit of being significantly quieter in operation when compared with a live-roller system. This one change likely will not eliminate the need for personnel to use PPE in the manufacturing environment. They will, however, experience an improved work environment that could contribute to higher worker satisfaction and retention, which is a lasting cost savings.

Reaping the benefits

Identifying cost-savings opportunities is all too frequently left up to a maintenance technician or a maintenance planner, with limited insight on the overall system. Taking a system-wide approach and engaging facility engineers, consultants, or a technically oriented distributor partner can aid any maintenance team in the discovery of innovative solutions. By evaluating savings opportunities beyond their immediate impact to the budget, a beneficial breakdown of the information silos between finance, maintenance, and purchasing often occurs.

Note that cost-saving strategies will be quantified differently, depending on a site’s motivation, i.e., taking advantage of energy savings, keeping product reliably moving down the line, or reducing incidents of workplace injury related to repetitive stress. Still, while organizations committed to system-wide optimization can rarely fully quantify their captured savings, the impact of such strategies can never be underestimated. MT

Information for this article was provided by Greg Mink, a corporate account manager in Contract Management, at Motion Industries Inc., Birmingham, AL. He has more than eight years assisting industrial customers identify, track, and quantify cost savings. For more information, visit motionindustries.com or Motion’s Knowledge Hub.

39

4:02 pm
April 6, 2016
Print Friendly

White Paper | Predictive Analytics for Power Plants

Power producers are encountering many changes to their business model and remote monitoring — along with predictive analytics — is an attractive value proposition to end users. GE’s Predix platform offers SmartSignal, a software system that models historian plant data and constructs anomaly data to measure current conditions at a power plant. The modeling is called Variable Similarity-Based Modeling (VBM) technology and can be teamed up with GE’s Industrial Performance and Reliability Center (IPRC) to provide a comprehensive reliability solution.

This white paper introduces key concepts from the SmartSignal software and examines three power plant case studies.

Read White Paper >>

Maintenance Technology’s IIoT page | Find out more about edge computing and other proactive maintenance approaches.

105

4:53 pm
March 18, 2016
Print Friendly

Five Disruptive Manufacturing Megatrends

According to the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI), recent shifts in technologies, demographics, and markets have created a new normal for manufacturers. The good news is enterprises that adapt quickly will emerge more innovative and agile than their competitors. A report from the Arlington, VA-based Alliance (mapi.net) points to the following five disruptive changes setting the stage for this sector’s future. Entitled Manufacturing Megatrends, it summarizes findings from a recent survey of 81 senior executives and assesses the impact of these five factors on their businesses in 2015. Key takeaways and some associated survey findings include:

Information is the new currency.
With unparalleled access to information on pricing and profitability, customers have never been better informed on the total cost of ownership (TCO). To succeed, manufacturers need to create new forms of value and arm themselves with data showing the superiority of their solutions. According to MAPI’s report:

  • Top-performing companies are eight times more likely to take a value-based approach toward pricing. Yet 60% of industrial companies don’t have a well-articulated pricing strategy.
  • A TCO approach pays off. Industrial companies that measure and buy based on total cost of ownership are 35% more profitable.

The new workforce
The manufacturing workforce is aging and it’s harder than ever before to attract talent. Access to skilled labor had a negative impact on nearly two-thirds of responding executives’ operations in 2015. According to MAPI’s report:

  • Companies with gender-diverse management teams outperform their peers’ EBITDA by 15%. Those with ethnically diverse management teams outperform peers EBITDA by 35%. Yet the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) workforce is no more diverse today than it was 15 years ago.
  • Women make up only 18% of the advanced-manufacturing workforce and African-American and Latino workers, combined, make up only 16%.

Globalized economic risks and opportunities
With 45% of U.S. manufacturing revenue generated overseas, exposure to currency fluctuations, volatile energy and commodity prices, global supply-chain disruptions, and regional economic uncertainty is at an all-time high. Economic and currency challenges took five of the top 10 spots on the survey’s list of factors having the most negative impact on businesses. According to MAPI’s report:

  • Market opportunity already plays a significant role in manufacturing footprint decisions, but for nearly 50% of companies, it will be the critical decision factor by 2020. The availability of a strong local-talent pipeline is another crucial factor.
  • The rise in political uncertainty has decreased GDP by $150 billion and employment by 1.1 million. If uncertainty returned to 2007 levels, capital investment would jump 1.5%.

Technology’s promise and peril
Amazing opportunities offered by the Internet of Things, 3D printing, cloud, and other digital technologies also open a Pandora’s box of risks. According to MAPI’s report:

  • While 83% of manufacturers have or are in the process of developing a “bring your own device” policy, 80% are concerned about data-loss protection.
  • More than half of responding executives said it’s unlikely or highly unlikely they could detect a sophisticated cyber attack, despite the average breach costing nearly $4 million.

Regulatory labyrinths
Ever-changing requirements make it increasingly difficult and costly for manufacturers to succeed globally, and force them to reallocate resources to address burdensome regulations. According to MAPI’s report:

  • Between 1981 and 2012, more than 2,000 regulations directly affecting manufacturers were issued. The annual cost of complying with merely the major ones? $726 billion.
  • Manufacturers predict that within five years regulatory and tax concerns will have twice the impact on footprint decisions, compared with today. MT

To learn more about MAPI and to download a copy of its recent Manufacturing Megatrends Report, visit mapi.net.

247

4:58 am
March 18, 2016
Print Friendly

People Culture and Change

“I love researching solutions to problems, evaluating the best path forward, and implementing improvements. Reliability has an endless supply of opportunity.”
—Robert Bishop

Robert Bishop combines technical expertise with leadership to improve reliability at Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

By Michelle Segrest, Contributing Editor

A passion for people and equipment allowed Robert Bishop the opportunity to find his dream job at the intersection of reliability and systems improvement. “I enjoy dealing with the equipment side of things, but I also love to deal with people,” the Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS) maintenance engineer said. “I realized early on that this is part of who I need to be professionally.

With a degree in mechanical engineering from the Univ. of Rochester and a master’s of science in bioengineering from Syracuse Univ., Bishop had many career options. He worked in validation for 12 years and then had to make a decision to either be a lifer or diversify.

“I knew that if I didn’t do something soon, the decision would be made for me,” he said. “The opportunity came for the role I’m currently in, so I took the leap. From the first day I sat in this chair, I’ve never regretted it. If I could sit down and create the perfect job for myself, I couldn’t come up with a better fit.”

Three and a half years later, Bishop has balanced his technical skills with strong management skills to launch and implement many successful reliability programs for BMS.

“The best thing about my responsibilities is the ability to enhance and improve our systems,” he said. “No matter where you are on the continuum there is opportunity to improve. Technology is always changing and people are always joining the team. I love researching solutions to problems, evaluating the best path forward, and implementing improvements. Reliability has an endless supply of opportunity.”

0316f1credentials

Maintenance and reliability philosophy

Bishop said he believes strongly that action is more impactful than ideas.

“My overall reliability philosophy is to create robust systems, to educate your team, and then get out of the way and let them be successful,” he said. “People are more important than knowledge. I try to remind myself that it’s great to have a lot of ideas, but if we don’t actually do anything, we are never going to go anywhere. You can’t just drag your feet forever. You can force people to do what you want, but if you don’t invest in the people and acknowledge that they are the ones that makes things happen, you’re not going to see that benefit for the long run.”

Bishop works with 550 other employees at the BMS biological site in Syracuse, NY. The equipment is similar to what is typically used in a brewery, but with more filtration and chromatography steps. His team of 10 maintenance professionals works on tanks, filters, pumps, gearboxes, skid-based equipment, centrifuges, chromatography, and filtration skids. The larger team involves about 100 people at the site responsible for facilities and engineering. Bishop serves as a maintenance engineer but also is the acting maintenance manager, so he is responsible for maintaining the equipment, as well as the asset-management department and the CMMS system. The non-process equipment is handled through an outsourced maintenance company and there is also a facilities-management group.

Bishop’s connection with people extends to mentoring others to reach their goals and succeed.

He remembers an example when a young woman within a different organization at the site had an interest in reliability but didn’t have any background in it. “Over the course of about a year we had some meetings, lunch-and-learns, and many discussions on the topic,” Bishop said. “I provided her with reading material and links to webinars that would help her to learn. She recently sat for her Certified Reliability Leader exam and passed. I’m very proud of her and know that someday she will have a more formal role in the field of maintenance and reliability.”

Although Bishop spends each day in strategy meetings, but also solves day-to-day issues. He drives root-cause analysis, launches new systems, and is involved in upgrades to the CMMS system. One of his most successful best-maintenance practices is reporting by exception. “I don’t need to know when everything is going well. I need to know when things are not going as planned so I can communicate to the larger organization,” Bishop said. “I try to look for what isn’t supposed to be there. For example, when you look at the integrity of the data in our CMMS system, you can create all the reports you want. Sometimes, it is beneficial to go look for things you don’t expect to find. For example, I don’t expect to find a blank priority field. But if I write a query for that and pull up all work orders that have blank priority fields I can ask ‘Why?’ I share an office with our reliability engineer and we report to different reporting structures within our larger facilities but we work closely together and there are a lot of topics that flow back and forth.”

Bishop focuses on high-value work. “We all could spend 90 hours a week working and still not get everything done. We have to identify where to put our effort.”

His commitment to people and processes does not go unnoticed by his peers.

“Robert is a well-respected member of the reliability community both internally at Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and externally,” said George Williams, BMS associate director of asset management, Global Facilities Services. “Robert was awarded the BMS Reliability Excellence Leader of the Year award for 2015. Additionally, he was a finalist for the SMRP Rising Star award and leads their Biologics and Pharmaceuticals VSIG. He is a contributing author and presenter at multiple conferences annually. Rob consistently looks to contribute, collaborate, and improve what we do every day. His ideas have turned into standardized approaches for BMS shared throughout our network and helping to drive us to reliability sustainability.”

“With all of the achievements and accolades, most notable is that Rob is a leader. He is humble, gracious, and looks to develop others, which creates an environment where everyone contributes and feels welcomed. He has a rare combination of skills and knowledge, combined with drive, motivation, and impeccable soft skills to navigate the difficult terrain of a global company.”

Programs that make a difference

0316f1-tipsBishop is proud of several programs he has driven. He implemented one for paperless work orders that saved the company 120,000 pages of paper/year and also saved four full-time equivalent (FTE) efforts. However, he repurposed the people and no one lost their job. The program made valuable data available in real time while improving the quality of work.

He also drove a year-long PM-optimization program and implemented a lubrication-enhancement program that allowed closed systems, consolidated lubricants, and visual-management improvements.

The lubrication program focused on a BMS site that’s been around since 1943. It was originally a facility that produced penicillin during WWII, and had gone through a lot of evolutions through the decades. Many of the lubricants on site were not needed. In fact, some of the drums of oil were 10 to12 years old.

“There were lubricants with slow turn, and it just wasn’t ideal,” Bishop recalled. “We didn’t know where everything went. A maintenance technician, who was here for 30 years, had a cheat sheet and knew which oil went in which gearbox. It worked great, but was not a very robust system. When I came into my role here, I took it upon myself to pull together a team that analyzed where everything was being used, and then we brought in one of our vendors who helped us consolidate.”

The program allowed the site to downgrade from 46 lubricants to just eight oils and four greases.

“We closed up the systems provided by the manufacturer on our gearboxes and level indicators. In most cases we used a sight-glass tube,” Bishop explained. “We closed the systems on the larger ones and installed Quick Connect so we could use a filter cart. We installed sample ports with dip tubes and we started doing oil sampling near where it is being used in the gears and not just in the bottom of the gearbox. We started the oil-sampling program to drive increased reliability. We weren’t necessarily having a lot of failures because of poor lubrication, but we had a lot of practices that weren’t ideal.”

The program included taking steps to do things through visual management. Now, gearboxes have a tag that indicates what is inside. It also identifies the viscosity and the manufacturer, and the same tag is on the oil container that is brought out to the field. An identical tag is on the oil-filtration skid.

It took about a year to transform into a closed system so no moisture or particles find their way into the gearboxes. “It was definitely worth the effort,” Bishop said. “We now have one of the better lubrication programs that I’ve ever seen. Nothing’s perfect, but we now have a very robust system.”

Challenges with change

0316f1-quoteBishop said he has always enjoyed change and the positive impact it can have on reliability systems. But sometimes it is difficult to convince others that change is a good thing.

“The biggest challenge is convincing people that improving systems and reducing workload will not result in reduced headcount,” Bishop said. “I point to my track record, and it speaks for itself. My goal is never to get rid of people. The people I work with know they can trust me. I wouldn’t say something and then do something else. For people who don’t know me, I am very proactive about addressing this.”

Bishop relies on tools such as a Best In Class (BIC) weekly meeting where all crew supervisors get together with a common goal to continuously improve and help each other. They use other tools such as ARMED software, which can identify KPI and reliability data such as a top-10 bad-actor list. Bishop also uses his more than 10 years of experience in the field of equipment qualification and validation—experience that has provided him with a robust understanding of documentation, quality systems, and equipment.

The greatest tool that Bishop uses is his ability to connect people with culture and change. “I always want to improve,” he said. “I always appreciate the people involved, and I know what it takes to change culture. It isn’t always easy, but it is always possible. It doesn’t have to be a huge project. It can be small, incremental things. But I’m a supporter of change. We must always strive to improve.” MT

Michelle Segrest has been a professional journalist for 27 years. She has covered the industrial processing industries for nine years. If you know of a maintenance and/or reliability expert who is making a difference at their facility, please drop her an email at michelle@navigatecontent.com.

70

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.

138

9:22 pm
February 8, 2016
Print Friendly

KISSing Is Good For Reliability

1602mrcprocess01p.jpeg

As catchy phrases go, ‘Keep It Simple Stupid’ has legs when it comes to managing equipment health.

The KISS principle is one of the first rules of good engineering practice. An acronym for “Keep It Simple Stupid,” it refers to the fact that most things function best if kept simple. According to Trent Phillips, global reliability leader for Novelis Inc., Atlanta (novelis.com), the principle has maintenance and reliability significance.

As he wrote in a 2014 blog post on the Ludeca Inc. (Doral, FL) website (ludeca.com), end users often believe that costly, complex activities/functions are required to improve equipment reliability. While that may be the case in certain situations, you can make it the exception and not the rule in your facility. The point is not to focus excessively on expensive, complicated reliability functions you cannot complete and overlook the fundamentals in keeping equipment reliable.

What types of simple reliability improvements can you make? Phillips emphasizes these equipment basics:

  • Align shafts and other components.
  • Balance rotating components such as fan blades, impellers, and rotors.
  • Tighten appropriately; eliminate looseness and excessive vibration.
  • Lubricate correctly; not too much or too little.
  • Inspect.
  • Apply condition monitoring.
  • Understand where your efforts should be focused.

Also, don’t wait until equipment is installed and operating. According to Phillips, “Failure to address these vital aspects from the beginning through operation of your equipment will lead to higher maintenance costs and reduced equipment reliability.”

Unfortunately, important reliability-improvement efforts in plants often fall victim to lack of resources, understanding, time, and funding. To counter this situation in a facility, Phillips urges the reliability team to ensure that the site’s engineering, maintenance, production, purchasing, and management teams all understand, and routinely employ, fundamental KISS practices. MT

Indicators That Keep Things Simple

Trent Phillips, global reliability leader with Novelis Inc., Atlanta (novelis.com), believes questions such as “Can we make our production schedule?” and other crystal-ball-type probing from plant personnel often put maintenance and reliability professionals in a tough position. In a December 2015 blog post on ludeca.com/blog, he called out four future indicators that organizations can leverage to help answer such questions:

Preventive maintenance (PM) completion rate. Low PM completion rates directly correlate with increased future equipment-maintenance work. High PM completion rates mean that needed equipment maintenance is being completed and future maintenance issues will be avoided.

Ready-to-work backlog. This is an indicator of preparedness and efficiency to complete maintenance work.

Outage-schedule compliance. This important-to-track metric is an indicator of future maintenance work. Not adhering to outage schedules creates deferred equipment maintenance. This results in increased risks and likelihood that equipment performance will decrease at a future time, leading to lower capacity, increased downtime, and greater operating costs.

Equipment-asset-health reporting. Condition-monitoring tools, such as vibration analysis, infrared thermography, oil analysis, and ultrasound, can assure that impending failures are identified and corrected before they result in equipment downtime or other unwanted consequences. Tracking indicators from these technologies together can provide insights into future asset health. The “red” assets they identify can lead to unwanted equipment maintenance and downtime if corrective action isn’t taken. Additionally, if an effective critical-equipment ranking system is in place, asset-health-reporting can help prioritize maintenance efforts.

For more information on equipment-health-related strategies and techniques, including blog posts by Trent Phillips and other experts in maintenance and reliability, visit ludeca.com/blog.

162

9:01 pm
February 8, 2016
Print Friendly

Encourage Your Hidden Coaches

A major competitive advantage for a company is its employees’ ability to learn, grow, and change so they can discover, improve, innovate, and meet the challenges of an evolving marketplace. According to Tara Holwegner of Life Cycle Engineering (LCE.com), Charleston, SC, another challenge many process organizations face involves harnessing the intellectual capital of experienced employees and using it to benefit new employees and enterprise initiatives.

Holwegner should know. She’s a learning and performance-improvement subject matter expert (SME) for Life Cycle Institute. The intellectual capital to which she refers typically isn’t delivered in a classroom.

According to the “70-20-10 Framework” from the 70:20:10 Forum (702010forum.com), Surrey Hills, Victoria, Australia, about 10% of learning comes from a formal learning environment (online or classroom); 70% from experiential opportunities, e.g., day-to-day learning, challenging projects/tasks, stretch goals; and 20% from social learning (mentoring, coaching). That indicates that, while formal instruction is critical to developing talent in an organization, it’s a rather small part of how people learn and grow.

Holwegner advises maintenance and reliability professionals to take a closer look at people’s roles and see how they might function as coaches, knowledge agents, and advocates for professional growth and change. Ask yourself, “Who are the hidden coaches in my organization?” and “How can we harness that extra 20% of learning to produce results, influence what we teach, and make the most of the critical 10%?”

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 2.59.45 PM

Skilled workers as hidden coaches

“A skilled worker,” according to Holwegner, “can be an excellent hidden coach or ambassador of knowledge.” Although he or she may not have the title of expert or coach, this type of worker can be considered an expert in a field and frequently be asked to share knowledge to enhance competency in a certain area.

Holwegner points to several examples of hidden coaches you might find in your company:

  • tenured work planners
  • experienced operators
  • skilled maintenance technicians or journeymen
  • millwrights
  • veteran craftspersons
  • software system “power users”
  • financial or contract analysts
  • top-selling salespeople
  • six-sigma green or black belts.

She characterizes hidden coaches as “knowledge powerhouses” who can share their intellectual capital during employee on-boarding, change and improvement initiatives, everyday problem-solving activities, and work planning. “Their individual consult,” she continued, “can drive solution design, identify process re-engineering needs, steer work-procedure documentation, and influence training requirements.” But there’s more.

“Another benefit from having a hidden coach on your team,” Holwegner noted, “could be their informal leadership. As a respected or influential person within the organization, their credibility can be a positive or negative risk to your initiative.”

Harnessing the power

To make use of hidden coaches’ tacit knowledge, Holwegner encourages project leads to first ensure the work practices of such individuals align with standards, then invite these employees to contribute and participate, as well as record their best practices for enterprise use.

In Holwegner’s view, every organization has hidden coaches with the capacity to mentor and motivate employees to practice behaviors that produce results. “With 90% of learning coming from on-the-job challenges and social learning through coaching,” she explained, “these hidden gems can be incorporated into both strategic and daily initiatives to manage your company’s intellectual capital and strengthen workforce skills.” MT

Tara Denton Holwegner is a PMP, Certified Professional in Learning and Performance (CPLP) and Prosci Certified Change Management Professional. In her role as a learning and performance improvement SME for Life Cycle Engineering, Charleston, SC, she co-developed the organization’s 3A Learning process that incorporates the concepts of active learning and change management. For more information, email tholwegner@LCE.com, or visit LCE.com.

44

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:

  • ISO 55000:2014
  • ISO 55001: 2014
  • ISO 55002:2014

‘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.

Navigation