Making Operational Excellence a Reality
by Mike Bresko
Has your company struggled to sustain its Lean, Six Sigma, or other initiative? Even if the initiative appears successful, does a closer look reveal that standard work is often not followed, front-line supervisors don’t exhibit the behaviors required to sustain the improvements, and the culture hasn’t really changed? This article aims squarely at understanding the root cause of these problems, and providing a solution that builds a culture of ongoing operational excellence.
Competition is fierce, especially during these challenging economic times, and companies have to improve performance of their processes.
Most companies adopt, or attempt to adopt, methods such as Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, Total Quality Management, Total Productive Maintenance, and a host of others. Unfortunately, studies show a poor record of success of sustaining reliable operations. Often, serious backsliding occurs. Or, if the implementation appears successful, a deeper look reveals that employees don’t always follow standard work, supervisors don’t know how to reinforce standard routines, and managers seem to prefer to move onto the next initiative. The forces against sustaining process improvements are strong and relentless. The result is cost and quality well below process potential.
This article describes the Work-Harder Syndrome, the root cause of backsliding. It then introduces the Pathway to Operational Excellence and the Business System; which together can create quantum-leap improvement in key operating parameters, assure quality and productivity daily, enhance the capabilities of front-line supervision and associates, and build a culture of operational excellence.
The Importance of Process Improvement
All industries are under intense financial pressure right now. Press releases frequently announce red ink, bankruptcies, and industry consolidation. Which companies will survive? Will the survivors’ return on shareholders’ equity actually exceed the return from a money market fund?
Today, perhaps more than ever, companies must improve safety, reduce total cost, meet shorter delivery cycles, and meet more stringent quality requirements. Even the more-competitive companies must improve. As Will Rogers said, “Even if you are on the right track, you’ll eventually get run over if you sit there.”
In today’s economic environment, companies adopt various approaches to balance the books. One approach is to downsize via slashing headcount, divesting non-strategic assets and closing plants. A second approach hopes to achieve cost and competitiveness improvement via merging or acquiring. A third approach is to become more competitive by improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the company’s processes.
While each approach has its place, the one that most improves a company’s ability to compete is the third – improving the company’s processes. Why is this? First, a company that operates its processes most efficiently has a clear advantage. For example, Southwest Airlines has simplified its processes for maintenance, spare parts management, training, and gate turnaround, allowing it to earn money while its competitors lose billions of dollars. Second, a company that has well-managed and understood processes can transfer its production and maintenance knowledge quickly to companies that it might acquire. For example, Alcoa applies its Business System to companies that it acquires to quickly improve their performance. Third, the downsizing approach is, at best, an effort to retrench. It buys time, and may even stop the red ink, but it doesn’t fundamentally strengthen the company.
The Challenge
Management of operating, maintenance, and office processes to achieve world-class levels of excellence is the best way for companies to compete. Recognizing this, many companies embark on various process improvement initiatives. They adopt methods such as Business Process Re-engineering, Total Quality Management (TQM), Small Group Activities, Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma, Open Book Management, Enterprise Resource Planning, Computerized Maintenance Management Systems, and a host of others.
As previously mentioned, there is a poor record of success. An Arthur D. Little survey indicated that only one-third of managers felt that their programs had any competitive impact. A McKinsey study found that two-thirds of corporate improvement programs grind to a halt because they failed to produce the hoped-for results. Research at MIT by Nelson P. Repenning and John D. Sterman discovered that despite spending nearly $100 billion during 1997 on implementing these types of methods, and notwithstanding dramatic success in a few companies, efforts to implement such methods generally failed to produce significant results.1, 2
It seems that research now proves what people in many, maybe most, companies have experienced. Each new method that comes around will soon pass – it’s just the flavor of the month. Many employees think that if they just keep their heads down and do what they’ve been doing, they’ll be all right – this too will pass.
There are problems with this type of thinking. First, if companies keep doing what they’ve been doing, they’ll get what they’ve been getting – and that is insufficient in this competitive environment. Second, it is wrong. Although it is true that many companies fail to achieve expected results, a number of careful studies now demonstrate that companies making a serious commitment to the disciplines and methods associated with what we call Sustained Reliable Operations, outperform their competitors.2, 3
Companies have at their disposal a host of methods that will improve performance. However, performance doesn’t improve. What is happening? Repenning and Sterman conclude that the ability to learn about these methods is not a barrier. There are a number of books, articles, and consultants available to help companies understand any of these methods. People in companies know what to do; they just can’t get it done. Or, if they can get it done, they can’t get it to last. The challenge is implementing these methods to create lasting improvement.
The Root of the Challenge – The Work Harder Syndrome
Why are methods to improve performance so difficult to implement; and why, if implemented, are the results so difficult to sustain? Solve this problem and unlock the key to sustainable competitive advantage.
Performance of a process depends on two factors: time spent working and the capability of the process to do that work. Process output can be improved by dedicating additional effort to work or to improvement — work harder or work smarter. Working harder produces immediate results; however, learning to work smarter produces the more sustainable improvement in output, and increases the capability of that process to produce higher output into the future. Working smarter requires time to study the process, understand problems, and implement changes. Studies show that achieving results on improving a relatively simple process, such as the yield of machines in a job shop, is on the order of a few months, while improving complex processes such as product development can take several years.4
Working harder to achieve the same improvement in output requires cutting back on planned maintenance, training, and other activities. Working harder actually causes capability to slowly deteriorate. Given competitive pressures and the need for quick results, pressure to work harder is immense, leaving little or no time to invest in working smarter.
How Successful Companies Beat the Challenge
As we noted above, the forces working against successful process improvement are strong and relentless. Still, some companies have produced dramatic results. How?
To combat these forces, successful companies must have equally strong countermeasures. Our study indicates that successful companies have a system. Let’s consider two companies that are voted among the most highly admired in business:
• GE’s Annual Report states that GE’s Operating System is its learning culture – in essence
the operating software of the company. Although GE is famous for Six Sigma, what most
people don’t realize is that the rest of the operating system was a key ingredient for the
success of Six Sigma at GE is.
• Toyota’s well-known Toyota Production System is the benchmark for manufacturing
operations. It includes tools such as Kanban and Single Minute Exchange of Dies,
but also includes less-noticed elements that engage employees and turn them into
problem-solvers who continually improve process performance.5
• Baldrige National Quality Award winners outperform the S&P 500 threefold. To win,
each of the companies had to demonstrate an interlocking set of processes from
understanding customer needs to engaging employees to operating practices. In short,
they had a system.
These companies organize and integrate various tools and methods into their own system. The tools and methods that make up these systems interact in a harmonious, orderly way.
A Recipe for Success
In this section, we describe key ingredients for establishing and operating a successful system, and apply them to a selected process. These ingredients help to break the forces resisting change. The first ingredient is a clear pathway to achieve excellence; the second is a system for managing and operating the business.
Pathway to Excellence
Companies need a roadmap to guide their managers and associates during the implementation of a methodology. Our experience suggests that following four key stages for implementing a major process improvement initiative.
Define the Opportunity — This stage defines the gap between current performance and industry benchmarks and company potential. Quantifying this gap provides the motivation for change. Benchmarking is a key method for defining the gap; however, comparisons to criteria such as Baldrige, Shingo, and others also provide useful insight.
Develop Leadership and Set Priorities — This stage starts with educating leadership on the approach and benefits of the methodology, be it TPM, Lean, Six Sigma, or something else. Then, leaders can determine the best plan for implementation and set goals for results. As the rollout begins, the leaders must take an active role in the application of the methodology and build their depth of knowledge. Eventually, all employees must achieve competency with the methodology. Employee competency is often overlooked, or cut short, due to the work-harder syndrome.
Mobilize the Organization and Create the Infrastructure for Change — This stage provides the horsepower to implement the change. The most effective approach is to assign employees full time to an improvement office. Ideally, these employees will represent a cross section of the organization. A full-time assignment assures that they will not be pulled into the urgent requirements of daily operations. Members of the improvement office become highly skilled with the technical aspects of the methodology and become skilled facilitators of change. They develop material to communicate and educate all employees and provide hands-on resources for implementing productivity improvements.
Implement the Methodologies and Sustain Results — Education and infrastructure are meaningless without results. An excellent approach to implementation is to select an initial application area. An initial application area is a critical process for the business that will serve as a model of the methodology’s application. The application must be thorough, not half way.
During this phase, apply the appropriate tools of Lean, Six Sigma, Maintenance and Reliability Systems (TPM), the Quality System, and exploit technology. Also during this phase, make the cultural changes necessary to sustain improved process performance. Later in this article, we describe Goal Deployment and Daily Management, systems that are important success factors during this phase.
Strive for Excellence — Many hurdles occur along this pathway. The root of these hurdles is the work-harder syndrome. Companies don’t have time to clearly define the opportunity, resulting in weak goals, little drive, and no “what’s in it for me.” Leaders don’t have time to develop their knowledge and skills, resulting in uncertain leadership. Companies don’t invest in an improvement office, resulting in too little energy available for improvement. Organizations within the companies do the minimum possible during the implementation (just enough to appear “on board” and to stay out of trouble), resulting in inadequate standardization and education on the improved procedures.
Remember, good is the enemy of great — being good enough is not good enough in today’s competitive environment. Make sure that all employees understand the best-in-class performance for their processes. Create a culture that strives to become world class.
The Business System
The second ingredient to break the work-harder syndrome is a clear, well-articulated Business System. This is often missed, and is the secret ingredient. There are three subsystems in the Business System. Although they are described separately, there is considerable interrelationship among them.
Leadership and Goal Deployment System — This system sets the direction for the company’s strategy, establishes and deploys goals and means to achieve the goals via an annual action plan, and assures accomplishment of the plan. Recognizing that resources for process improvement are at a premium, this system demands focus on only a very few critical objectives and unleashes resources to accomplish those objectives. This system is aimed at quantum-leap improvement.
Daily Management System — This system assures that daily output requirements are met and that process output reliably meets quality requirements. A core practice of the Daily Management System is the Standard Work Process. Recognizing the tendency for processes to go out of control or for performance to deteriorate, this process sets standards, assures the standards are followed, takes countermeasures when deviations occur, and learns from those mistakes. This system is aimed at standardization and incremental improvement.
Operating System
This system begins with an operating philosophy, such as Lean Manufacturing, and applies the principles of the philosophy to the company’s operations. Companies choose to produce in large batches or with minimal inventory. Companies choose to run to failure or to assure equipment reliability via autonomous maintenance and planned maintenance. The Daily Management System is what managers, supervisors, and team leaders do to assure that the operating system runs as expected. The operating system is how the operations are accomplished.
Many companies practice some parts of these three subsystems. Companies do set goals (or at least budgets), they do assure daily output requirements are met, and they have a way of operating even if it is poorly defined. However, few companies have consciously developed their Business System.
In our experience, three gaps are common:
• Goal deployment is diffused, with too many goals spreading resources too thinly.
• Daily management is only focused on meeting output requirements, and little or no effort
is placed on assuring that standards are followed.
• Operating system implementation is only surface deep.
As an example, how these gaps apply to maintenance processes is explored in the next section. However, the example could just as easily be for manufacturing or service operations.
An Example – The Reality for Maintenance Processes
Maintenance is often considered a necessary evil. Product has to be produced and delivery promises kept. Planned downtime for maintenance clearly decreases output while the equipment is down, but does it really result in more total output? Given the pressure to produce, the work-harder syndrome takes effect. The simple solution is to let equipment problems set priorities. The machine isn’t working so fix it — fast. If it isn’t broken, don’t mess with it. Unfortunately, maintenance costs are too high and equipment is unreliable. Something has to be done.
Imagine one manager in a company deciding to implement TPM. He or she can turn to many sources to learn about the 12-step process for implementation.6 The first steps prepare the company for TPM by educating, creating an organizational structure for promotion, setting goals, and developing a master plan. The next step begins implementation with a kick off. The remaining steps implement practices such as autonomous maintenance and planned maintenance, and improve critical equipment effectiveness. Learning about TPM is easy enough, just like Repenning and Sterman said it would be.
This manager learns that the first year of a typical TPM master-implementation plan is consumed by preparation such as establishing a committee, benchmarking, assigning coordinators, providing overview training, and developing a strategy. The work-harder syndrome and the urgent need to do something take control, and the manager decides to shortcut preparation. Now, let’s jump ahead in time and look at progress on one of the 12 steps — set up and implementation of autonomous maintenance. Some areas have accomplished an initial cleaning, placed autonomous maintenance boards, established inspection checklists and routes, and placed visual controls. Good job — even a casual observer can see the difference.
Now, move ahead six months and look into the same area. If our manager is from a typical company, you’ll still see some evidence of the autonomous maintenance effort such as the autonomous maintenance boards and the checklists. However, looking closer reveals that the inspection forms haven’t been completed for several months and the equipment condition is just about what it was before the initiative.
What caused this to happen? First, top management hadn’t aligned to use autonomous maintenance as a means to accomplish their business plans, specifically equipment reliability improvement. There was no real focus and no management follow up. In short, a goal deployment system wasn’t used. Next, we might observe that the supervisors in the area didn’t really understand autonomous maintenance other than that there were checklists that had to be completed. They didn’t know what to do to help assure that the operators followed the autonomous maintenance procedures. When another operator was assigned to the area, the supervisor didn’t have the time or the knowledge to provide training. In short, a daily management system wasn’t in place to assure sustainability.
Competitive pressures drive managers to press for immediate results that are most easily achieved by working harder. Little time is given to fundamentally changing the culture and establishing the new method as the way that work is accomplished. The result is a splashy rollout, some initial and visible results, and little else. Maybe they’ll try again in another year.
Why are methods to improve performance so difficult to implement; and why, if implemented, are the results so difficult to sustain? Solve this problem and unlock the key to sustainable competitive advantage.
Conclusions
Making process improvement is challenging. The pressure to do more with less engages the work-harder syndrome. In spite of the challenges, performance has to improve or the company’s survival is at risk. Here’s a guide for successful process improvement:
• Understand that the work-harder syndrome places powerful forces against process
improvement.
• Recognize the work-harder syndrome, believe that working smarter is better than
working harder, and focus on a precious few improvement goals.
• Follow the Pathway to Excellence. Each phase is necessary. However, don’t complete
each phase perfectly before moving onto the next. Instead, iterate by adopting and
repeating a learn-do-check cycle.
• Begin building a Business System. Start by setting and clearly deploying very few goals
for improvement and establishing methods for setting and sustaining standard practices.
• Apply a methodology (e.g., 5S, Lean, Six Sigma, TPM) to make improvements, but be
absolutely certain to set clear standards during implementation of new procedures.
• Put follow-up audits in place to review progress on the plan and to assure that standards
are followed.
• Develop competency in the front-line associates and supervisors so that the system
becomes self-sustaining.
• Expect to work incredibly hard.
Keep the payoff in sight – an operation where things gone wrong are a distant memory and the operations run smoothly.
Mike Bresko is a Lean Six Sigma Master who coaches and instructs practitioners, front-line associates, and executives; and guides clients to accomplishing and sustaining operational excellence. He has performed both Lean Six Sigma as well as Maintenance and Reliability conversion projects; and is an experienced senior-level executive who is also a hands-on practitioner of process excellence. Mike has 30 years of industrial experience, 15 being at Alcoa and the last 13 being with GPAllied or its parent. While at Alcoa, Mike held positions in product engineering, strategic planning, internal consulting, and as President, Alcoa-Zepf and Global Manager, Packaging Equipment where he took a hand-on approach to slash product lead times 60% and product development times 40-60%, and improve the reliability of Alcoa’s packaging equipment. While a consultant, Mike has worked with a wide variety of industries from automotive to smelting, insurance, and high tech. Mike has benchmarked world-class companies and published papers or books on 5S, Goal Deployment, Lean Transformations, Lean Reliability Culture, Daily Management, and Reliability Excellence. He holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering from Carnegie-Mellon University and an M.B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh. Mike is currently Principal Advisor at GPAllied, and can be reached at 206-484-0816 or mbresko@gpallied.com
References
1. N. P. Repenning and J. D. Sterman, “Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that
Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement,” Sloan School of
Management, MIT Center for Innovation in Product Development, work reported under
NSF cooperative agreement.
2. G. Easton and S. Jarrell, “The Effects of Total Quality Management on Corporate
Performance: An Empirical Investigation,” Journal of Business, 2 (1998) 253-307.
3. K. Hendricks and V. R. Singhal, “Quality Awards and the Market Value of the Firm:
An Empirical Investigation, “ Management Science, 3 (1996) 415-436.
4. A. Schneiderman, “Setting Quality Goals, “Quality Progress,” April (1988), 55-57.
5. S. Spear and H. K. Bowen, “Decoding the DNA of the Toyota Production System,”
Harvard Business Review, September-October 1999.
6. C. J. Robinson and A. P. Ginder, Implementing TPM: The North American Experience,
Productivity Press, 1995 ISBN 1-56327-087-0.
Don't Work Harder, Work Smarter.pdf
October 2009
October 01, 2009
Maintenance and Steven Covey
by Paul Swatkowski
Through his books and audio programs, Steven Covey, author of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and other works, has been a great influence on me and many of my colleagues. Over the years I’ve noticed a direct correlation of the practices of successful maintenance organizations and Dr. Covey’s seven habits. This article is based directly on Dr. Covey’s seven habits. It is drawn habit-by-habit from his book but with the examples modified to fit the maintenance world.
Covey first published his book in 1990. More than 14 million copies have since been sold and it’s been translated into over a dozen languages. In his book, Dr. Steven Covey breaks success in life down to the everyday practice of these seven habits:
Habit 1 – Be Proactive
Habit 2 – Begin with the end in mind
Habit 3 – Put first things first
Habit 4 – Seek Win/Win
Habit 5 – Seek first to understand, then to be understood
Habit 6 – Synergize
Habit 7 – Sharpen the Saw
These Habits not only apply to personal productivity, but to organizational productivity as well.
Each of these—and how they relate to maintenance organizations—are covered in detail in this article. Here is the “Seven Habits” story and how it can be applied to any Maintenance Organization:
In his teachings, Dr. Covey strongly encourages his students to go out and teach what they’ve learned as soon as possible after learning his material. There are three reasons for this. One, it reinforces the concepts for the person putting the teaching together. Next, it spreads these concepts to others who might not be familiar with them, and third, it’s likely that many people hearing these ideas will be interested enough in what’s taught to pursue their education in these matters more fully.
The above scenario is what Covey refers to as a “win/win,” which is Habit 4. The idea is you don’t stop here. Reading or listening to these concepts once is great, but for them to really become “Habits” one must revisit the material over and over again—i.e. buy the book. As more people in your maintenance department, and throughout your organization, adopt these habits, the culture will transform from the inside out. Reliability based maintenance, and all the benefits that come with it, can become a way of life.
Habit 1 – Be Proactive
Being proactive is the ability to control one’s own environment, rather than have it control you. It’s self determination. It’s choice. It’s the power to decide your response to stimulus, conditions, and circumstances.
The title of the first habit, and our frequent use of the same term in the maintenance and reliability field, is what originally drew my attention to the correlation between Dr. Covey’s 7 Habits and successful maintenance organizations. Reactive maintenance organizations have a tendency to jump or react when a piece of equipment fails. Proactive organizations respond based on a predetermined strategy.
Take Charge: In a ranked list of companies in any industry, there is one at the top and one at the bottom. Your organization is likely somewhere in-between. Companies move up that list when they realize that doing things the way they have always been done continually yields the same results. Organizations have the power to make the necessary changes to move up the ranks by choosing to take initiative, and embrace proactive change.
Realize That We Are Responsible: Being responsible is often viewed as being the person who should accept the blame when something goes wrong. Accepting that, we can then identify all the necessary things that should be done to ensure that things don’t go wrong. In other words, create the steps for success.
Step Down the Path of the Effective Organization: The organizations at the top of that list we mentioned have come to these realizations. They’ve decided what works in their organization, and they have learned and reinforced the habits of doing it effectively.
Rule Your Equipment: When you are proactive you rule your equipment, it doesn’t rule you. Successful organizations have found that the best way to do this is by moving up the F/PF (Failure/Potential Failure) Curve. That move is accomplished primarily through the use of predictive methodologies (PdM) and quantifiable PMs integrated with good Planning and Scheduling.
Decide to Make a Plan: Then, do it. Successful organizations design and build highly effective maintenance departments. You have the power! Deciding to make a plan segues us to Habit 2…
Habit 2 – Begin with the End in Mind
This is the habit of leadership—both personal and organizational—and leading yourself and the organization toward your goals. Dr. Covey professes that everything is created twice—once in the mental realm and then a second time in the physical realm. By first developing a clear mental vision of our desired results, we will be able to create the necessary steps to achieve that vision. Habit two is all about creating that vision.
Effective maintenance organizations have taken the time to create strategy plans for various aspects of their organizations. They make sure to include a good cross representation of the stakeholders in the formation of these plans. The output is always a document that can then be referred to and adhered to. Here are some areas in which strategy plans should be created and questions that should be asked:
Maintenance Strategy: Does a run-to-failure or a reactive strategy make sense to your organization? Do you want your jobs planned and scheduled in advance? Who in your organization should decide which equipment gets repaired first? What should the decision be based on—criticality of the equipment and job priority, or the squeaky wheel supervisor?
Reliability Strategy: Are you going to use predictive methodologies on all of your equipment to which it applies? Or, are you going to apply it only to certain systems? Will you use on-line monitoring, or route-based monitoring? Are quantitative PMs being utilized now, and if not, do you plan to apply the resources to scrub your PMs and make them better? Do you use/will you use reliability engineers?
Material Strategy: Will you have a lean storeroom, or a storeroom that never suffers stock outs? What will you base that decision on? Will you enter bill-of-material (BOM) data into your computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) ahead of time, or as you make entries for equipment as it’s repaired? Who’ll enter that data? What about kitting, or vendor managed inventories (VMI)?
Employee Strategy: Have you identified the skills your employees need to perform their jobs well? Do you know which employees have those skills and which don’t? Are you going to hire for new skills, use contractors, or train your existing employees in the new skills they need? It’s obvious that having the answers to these questions in advance, can head off major issues in the future.
Habit 3 – Put First Things First
This is the habit of personal management. But, it applies to organizations as well. It’s about organizing and implementing activities in line with the aims established in Habit 2. If Habit 2 is the first, or mental creation of a vision, then Habit 3 is the second, or physical creation of that vision via the creation of, and adherence to, an organized implementation plan.
Having a documented plan allows important activities (urgent or not) to never be at the mercy of the unimportant activities (urgent or not).
The steps of a successful organization’s implementation plan are determined through the assessment of their maintenance and reliability practices. This is usually best accomplished when done by an outside, or objective, set of eyes. The improvement steps resulting from these assessments include, but are not limited to, the following areas:
Business Processes:
- Instituting a cultural change management program
- Developing key performance indicators (KPIs)
- Developing workflows for all key processes
Foundational Elements:
- Verifying/scrubbing of the Master Equipment List (MEL)
- Criticality ranking of equipment
Inventory Strategy:
- Standardization of inventory content/taxonomy
- BOM development
- Storeroom design & kitting integration
- Stock optimization
Reliability:
- Determination of PdM baseline
- Performance of RCM and FMEA on applicable systems and equipment
- Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCMA)
- Application of appropriate PdM
- PM development and/or optimization
Training:
- Skills needs analysis
- Skills assessments
- Training Plan & Schedule
Steps should be included to ensure the plans are tracked, measured, adjusted if necessary, and adhered to.
Focus Efforts Where They Count: In Dr. Covey’s words, “Is your ladder against the right wall?” I’ve often asked maintenance organizations, “If two pieces of equipment go down at the same time, and you only have one crew to repair them, which one do you send the crew to first? Some of the answers are amazing. There should be no hesitation. Crews should be assigned according to equipment criticality and job priority. Following the seven habits eliminates this dilemma because during Habit 2, such rules were constructed with input from the appropriate parties. Everyone is aware of the strategy, and is on the same page.
Using Dr. Covey’s time management matrix, reproduced in Figure 3, allows us to identify where our time is being spent.
Quadrant II is where activities that are important, but not urgent, take place. It’s activities in this quadrant that keep us out of Quadrant I. Reactive organizations have not yet made this realization.
In our personal life, these are activities such as exercising, eating right, and going for medical and dental checkups. Maintenance-related Quadrant II activities include: equipment inspections, quantitative PMs, implementing and using predictive methodologies, creation of workflows, training to workflows, and entering foundational data into the Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS). By living in Quadrant II, we proactively head off the causes that have us work in Quadrant I. Remember, Quadrant I activities are more expensive because they are unplanned, and unplanned activities are always more expensive than planned activities.
Habit 4 – Think Win-Win
Dr. Covey calls this the habit of interpersonal leadership, necessary because achievements are largely dependent on cooperative efforts with others. He says that win-win is based on the assumption that there is plenty for everyone, and that success follows a cooperative approach more naturally than the confrontation of win/lose situations.
When a successful organization finds a solution to a situation they always ask, “How is this going to affect the processes before and after this one?” If it’s going to help one area but hurt another, then in the long run it’s not going to work. All solutions have to help all the parties concerned. Some groups to consider: finance, purchasing, operations, marketing, human resources, employees, stockholders, the neighboring community, even the local business owner down the street. We’re all on the same team.
An example of a win/win can be found in organizations that practice full integration between maintenance and operations. Communicating with operations to schedule planned maintenance activities within a reasonable timeframe allows both parties to better utilize their resources and adhere to their schedules.
Habit 5 – Seek First to Understand, Then to be Understood
One of the great maxims of the modern age, this is Covey’s habit of communication, and it’s extremely powerful. Covey helps to explain this in his simple analogy “diagnose before you prescribe”, which is simple, effective, and essential for developing and maintaining positive relationships in all aspects. Habit 5 is about communication and listening to the customer—in this case operations, employees, and management.
What do they mean when they say no? In presentations, I’ve often used the story of a production supervisor who refused to let a maintenance department have a piece of equipment for as long as they said they needed it.
What did the supervisor really mean when he said they couldn’t have the equipment for eight hours? Did he mean that if maintenance had the equipment for eight hours he wouldn’t make his production for the month? Did he mean he believed the equipment may be down longer? Maybe he felt that if it was down eight hours he’d have to go over his overtime targets for the month. Did he mean he’d rather have the job done partially or incorrectly? It’s possible that any or all of the first three may be true, but it’s highly unlikely that he’d want the job done partially or incorrectly only to have it fail again later, especially if that meant he wouldn’t make his targets under any possible recovery plan. Until we know what exactly his concerns are, how do we know how to find the win-win in that situation?
In dealing with any party, a highly effective maintenance organization should seek to find out what the concerns of the party are before formulating a response.
understand me” – Steven Covey
Habit 6 – Synergy
Covey says this is the habit of creative cooperation. The principle is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which implicitly lays down the challenge to see the benefits and potential in another person’s contribution.
In our example earlier, operations didn’t want to have the machine down at all, and maintenance felt they needed it for a full eight hours to repair the equipment properly. What if they compromised and agreed to repairing the equipment in four hours? In that case, neither party would get what they wanted. In reality, that’s a lose-lose situation, the worst of the four possible outcomes in Habit 4.
Compromise should be a red flag that things aren’t right. Instead, to find the win-win, one must proactively seek first to understand what it is that operations really needs. It might turn out that it’s just not a good time for the equipment to be down. It’s possible that it wasn’t a good time for maintenance either. Maybe maintenance needed eight hours because the welder was out, or a necessary part wasn’t in-house, so a part would have to be fabricated. During the conversation, it may be discovered that a combination of a temporary repair and a reduced load would allow operations to get their production out and allow maintenance to order the part and align all the necessary resources to fix the job right.
Now, instead of a lose-lose, there is a win-win. Seeking to understand the other group’s needs is key in establishing trust between departments. Some common activities during which synergy takes place in highly successful organizations are: Reliability Centered Maintenance Analysis (RCMA) sessions, Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA), Criticality Ranking sessions, and through Planner’s reviews of feedback forms completed by craftsmen at the close of Planned Maintenance activities.
Habit 7 – Sharpen the Saw
Habit 7 is the law of continuous improvement. It’s about personal development and the development of personnel. We read articles like this one and attend seminars and conferences because we want to develop our skills, and that’s very admirable. Part of our employee strategy mentioned in Habit 2 may revolve around training or Sharpening the Saw. Effective organizations recognize that employees can’t be held responsible to do something in a certain way, if they haven’t been properly trained. They commonly use workflows as the preferred method of mapping out organizational activities that can then be easily followed and adhered to. They also recognize that precision maintenance skills and predictive maintenance skills are not always skills craftspeople bring to the company with them.
When companies proactively train personnel, they must first establish the end goal. For example, an end goal might be for employees to perform the tasks as outlined in the job plans. Some necessary first steps would be to find out what skills are needed to accomplish that and what skills they already possess. Doing so allows for targeted training, which is less expensive than blanket training and is also more palatable to the student—another win/win. Learning additional skills often leads to job enhancement, which usually leads to job enrichment for the employee.
Conclusion
This is an extremely high overview of the 7 Habits and how they apply to successful maintenance organizations. Dr. Covey is listed as one of Time Magazine’s 25 Most Influential People for good reason. Practicing the 7 Habits has increased the productivity and quality of life of countless people. Read and re-read these 7 Habits looking for more ways in which they can apply in your life and in your organization. Research the topic more by reading or listening to the original works by Dr. Steven Covey or by contacting the author of this article.
Paul Swatkowski, CMRP, is a management/training consultant with 29 years of manufacturing, processing, and consulting experience. Paul has a background as a Trainer at United Technologies’ Corporate University, and worked as a Quality Manager and Quality Engineer in the Aviation Industry. He has extensive experience which includes world-wide delivery of; Corporate Gap Analysis Assessments, Total Productive Manufacturing, One Piece Flow, Kanban, 5S-Space consolidation, Value Stream Mapping, Root Cause Analysis, Mistake Proofing, Lean Manufacturing, Inventory Reduction, Reliability Centered Maintenance Analysis, Failure Modes & Effects Analysis, Workflow Development, and Maintenance Planning and Scheduling. A proven problem solver, Paul is highly effective at conveying the necessary information to foster change. He defines, develops, and delivers world-class training in maintenance and reliability best-practices to external MRG customers as well as internal employees. Paul has direct hands-on experience with instructional design methods and has led delivery of over 100 formal customer training courses in both on-site and public venues internationally. He can be reached at SwatkowskiP@MRGinc.net
Maintenance and Steven Covey.pdf
Tap Into Infrared
by Jeffrey L. Gadd
Infrared thermography is emphatically embraced by those who have realized the benefits. Equally, infrared is dismissed by those who aren’t quite sure what it is or whether it has value. “I’ve been here twenty years and we never needed infrared” are words on the lips of more than one old salt. Well, things change, and this is an exciting time for those of us who are involved in the IR technology. When evaluating this technology for your operation there are two methods to consider, specifically; should you develop an in-house program or outsource the work? Training and experience of the thermographer and the quality of the infrared (IR) camera used on the job are both a critical part of the equation. Figuring out which camera is the best value can be tricky, so proper research on the subject and some due-diligence are required for you to be able to “tap into infrared”.
In-House vs. Outsourced
This is simple: unplanned downtime = lost money. For companies with critical operations, 24/7 manufacturing and a proactive mindset, an in-house program makes good business sense. Many companies have successfully implemented in-house programs; for example, 2006 Uptime PdM Program of the Year Infrared winners Johns Manville in Kansas, and 2007 Infrared winners Aerospace Testing Alliance (ATA) at Arnold Air Force Base in Tennessee, to name a couple. These are examples of world class in-house P/PM programs. Many companies must outsource this type of work as it is not economically feasible to have an in-house program. The biggest benefit to outsourcing is that there is no long term commitment and the costs are generally lower –but so are the returns on investment. Not having an on-site IR camera system makes troubleshooting using IR impossible.
Training and Education (In-House)
Training is a critical step if you have an in-house program or are planning to start one. In the case of electrical infrared inspections, a person with an electrical background is the ideal person to train on infrared if they have the right personality. Someone that is timid is not a good candidate. While performing electrical inspections, there are a lot of considerations. Safety is the first, but you also need a person who understands the equipment, i.e., switchgear, buss ducts, fuse clips, control transformers, etc., so that they can identify what they are looking at.
Next, never make the thermographer responsible for the repairs when he or she finds problems, even if they are capable of accomplishing, them because it is not efficient. Infrared thermography has not quite progressed into a science, so it is still somewhat of an art form. This leads to wild variances in the number of reportable findings. Training and mentoring by an experienced thermographer is key. There are other personality factors to consider. Some people will over-report even if this creates more work for them. Others will not report all the problems because they don’t want to repair them, or they think maybe it will be OK until the next scan or the classic “I’m quitting soon, so I don’t really care” attitude.
Training and Experience (Outsourced)
Training and experience of the thermographer are the two factors that should drive the purchase of any service. A technician from a professional infrared service company has most likely [but not certainly] had some sort of formal training and on the job training. However, the more important component is to find someone with a considerable amount of experience. No one wants an untrained thermographer with a low-resolution IR camera learning how to do electrical infrared surveys at their facility. You must qualify the contractor by inquiring as to what type of training they have had, what references they have and what experience they have accumulated.
Many companies that we have dealt with in the past (even ones that have eventually hired us), at first, judge the company solely by the cost of my service –which is not the right way to buy any service, and certainly not infrared services. Recently a company brought me in for what seemed to be an “interview” and plant tour. Both the maintenance manager and plant manager had prepared questions to find out what we could and could not do. It was refreshing to see people take a genuine interest in evaluating my skills, my company’s capabilities and the cost of the services. This is one of few companies in recent years that have taken the time to find out what they are really paying for.
Evaluating samples of past IR projects by the thermographer is important and effective. When someone prepares a sample project, they will naturally use some of their more impressive imagery. If the thermographer shows you images that look like the ones on the left in either Figure 1 or Figure 2, it should let you know that you definitely do not want to hire them since you are probably looking at their “best” work.
Infrared Cameras (In-House and Outsourced)
To effectively contract IR services, one needs to evaluate not only the thermographer’s capabilities, but also the equipment specified. The specification should be based on performance and not brand-specific. In other words, the specification should not read: “the IR camera used shall be a Brand-X, Model-Y”. Instead the spec should be about the technical characteristics of the camera, such as the minimum spatial resolution and the minimum thermal sensitivity.
Other considerations when specifying IR cameras are:
• Proprietary infrared software compatibility and usability
• Lens options (telephoto, wide-angle)
• Built-in visual camera
• Built-in voice recording & data-logging
• Built-in laser pointer
• Extra (and standard!) batteries
• Adaptability to infrared windows (to increase safety and lower PPE requirements)
Once you have narrowed down your selection of cameras to a couple, ask for demonstrations of the units and the software for each. Bear in mind that the newest trend on the lower end cameras is for the manufacturers to sell through distributors instead of reps. Distributors don’t have the margins to sell by demonstration, so they will resist. Now, if you want a demo of a $35K camera, I promise a representative will make time for you.
Conclusions
When evaluating what infrared technology can do for your operation, there are many considerations. In-house programs can be very successful, but are highly prone to failure if you select the wrong personnel and if the program is not given full support by management. If you outsource your infrared services, set up an “interview” with the contractors and have lots of questions ready. At the end of the interview, you should know if this contractor will not meet, meet or probably exceed your expectations. When specifying an IR camera purchase, consider hiring a thermographer who knows the IR market to be your consultant. Many cameras have features that are not necessary and overpriced. Do your homework each step of the way and you will see positive results and a positive impact to your company’s bottom line.
Jeffrey L. Gadd is the owner of Vision Infrared Services (www.visioninfrared.com) in Cleveland, OH. He is a Level II Infrared Thermographer and has an AAS in Industrial Electricity along with 12 years experience as a electrician and maintenance technician. You can contact Jeff with questions at 440-554-3620 or e-mail to: jeff@visioninfrared.com
Tap Into Infrared.pdf
Reduce the Red by Going Green
by Chris Rehmann
Rising cost and shrinking availability of clean water for operating industrial pumps are of concern to many plant managers, as is as the high cost of treating this water for disposal. For over a half-century, the accepted method of providing cooling and flush water for mechanical seals and packing has been to pipe plant water through the seal or packing, and then to drain. Under this scenario, the normal consumption of water is 1.7 million gallons of water per pump, per year.
A water management system that cools and re-circulates the water can reduce this water consumption to just a few gallons per year. This water management system also increases the pump reliability and mean time between failures (MTBF) significantly, with a return on investment (ROI) that is usually around 6-12 months. Additionally, significant energy savings is documented through the use of this system, by greatly reducing or eliminating the amount of energy needed to heat the flush water up to process temperatures, and then to boil/evaporate this water from the product.
Water, Water Everywhere…
“Almost 3 billion people will face severe shortages of water by 2025 if the world keeps consuming water at current rates…” United Nations Report
“Even where supplies are sufficient or plentiful, they are increasingly at risk from pollution and rising demand. Fierce national competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict…” Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General
“The simple fact is that there is a limited amount of water on the planet, and we cannot afford to be negligent in its use. We cannot keep treating it as if it will never run out…” Mohammed El Baradei, Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Of all the world’s water, 97.4% is salt water, 2% is frozen in glaciers and ice caps, and only 0.6% is available for human consumption and industrial use. As the above quotes illustrate, our water supplies are finite; the sources of supply are becoming increasingly polluted, and are asked to supply ever-larger volumes. The United States is struggling with long-term water shortages in California and the Southeast, shortages which will not be overcome by one or two good years of rainfall. We have also heard about the serious drop in the water level of the Ogallala Aquifer which underlies 8 central states, from North Dakota to Texas, due to over-pumping of this water resource for crop irrigation.
Clean, fresh water is a limited resource which is under increasing pressure on our planet. There are compelling reasons to actively pursue water conservation measures that are both proven and economically justified.
The Impact of Industry
However, the rising cost of water, along with increasing awareness of the long-term consequences of unrestricted water use, has caused many forward-thinking companies to reconsider their traditional, wasteful water use practices. Moderate investments in proven new water-conserving technology can achieve financial payback within the first year, while also having beneficial effects on our global water supply that will last for decades.
The Importance of a Fluid Film
The fluid film can be adversely affected by process upsets that lead to dry-running of the seal, which can include:
• Process changes upstre am that lead to no liquid product at the pump.
• Operator error (opening or closing a valve which stops product flow to the pump, etc.)
• Cavitation, where there is inadequate net-positive suction head to the pump and the liquid
product changes into a vapor state at the impeller.
Mechanical seal faces can also be damaged by product crystallization due to temperature and pressure changes across the face. Suspended solids in the pumped liquid are another major cause of seal damage, and these solids must be kept away from the faces with a supply of cle an water to form the fluid film or the seal will fail prematurely.
Old “Water-to-Drain” Plan
In the water-to-drain plan, plant water is supplied to all of th e double mechanical seals in parallel from a water header main. This plan can work satisfactorily if all conditions start out perfectly and stay perfect, but as we know, this level of perfection is rarely found or maintained in a real, operating, industrial plant. The water-to-drain plan is prone to process upsets that cause seals and pumps to fail, for example:
1. Water will take the path of least resistance. If the pressure and flow rates of each branch of
the piping are not set exactly right at startup, most of the water will selectively flow through
the pipe with the least resistance, leaving the other seals to starve for water and seal
failures can result.
2. If one mechanical s eal fails and allows process fluid to enter the water supply line. All of
the seals can be cross-contaminated and thus lead to multiple seal failures.
3. If an alternative flow path is created, for example by an operator turning on a large water
line for wash-down, the pressure and flow of water to the seals will drop and this could
lead to seal failures.
4. If the quality of the water being supplied by this system is poor, it will lead to solids being
delivered to, and collecting on, the seal faces; this will lead to premature seal failure.
In addition to these failure modes, water-to-drain has the following cost cons iderations:
• If the supply water is being purchased from a municipal supply, the cost of the water can
be very high, as can be the cost of treatment and disposal of the waste water.
• The typical water flow rate on a water-to-drain plan runs an average of 3.2 gallons per
minute to drain. Running 24/7, this amounts to a staggering 1.7 million gallons of water
per year, per pump, running to the drain.
New Water Saving Solution
The tank is connected to the plant water main and automatically tops up with water to replace the very small amount (about 30 gallons per year) of barrier water that is lost at the seal faces during normal operation. The tank is maintained at a pre-set pressure that is one bar (15 psi) above the pump’s stuffing-box pressure, to maintain a positive pressure differential across the seal faces that ensures clean barrier water is forming the fluid film (as opposed to process liquid). Additional cooling can be accomplished, where necessary, by adding fins to the tubing, adding a cooling coil to the tank, and/or using a larger tank.
The advantages of this system include:
• The waste water-to-drain is completely eliminated, with huge savings in water resources,
the cost of water, and the cost of treating waste water. A single tank/seal combination
typically uses only about 30 gallons of water per year, thus typically saving 1.7 million
gallons per pump per year.
• Water from the plant main line passes through a check valve which prevents contamination
caused by a seal failure from passing back into the main, so each pump and seal is isolated;
one seal failure does not adversely affect other pumps.
• A pressure regulator on the water feed line into each tank sets the tank pressure at the
correct pressure for that pump, so each pump can operate at a different pressure and
have a fluid film that is maintained at 1 bar (15 psi) over its stuffing box pressure. Note
that the maximum pressure possible in each tank is equal to the plant’s main water line
pressure.
• Each tank/seal/pump is a stand-alone system; change s in the operating conditions of one
pump or the water flow to one seal do not affect the water flow to the seals of any other
pump.
• Changes in the main line pressure, such as turning on a wash-down hose, do not affect the
operation or the pressure in the tank systems, as each tank is isolated by its own check
valve.
• The water quality is greatly improved by installing a filter on the incoming line to each tank.
Since only about 30 gallons of water are used per tank per year, the filter will last a long
time before plugging. Cleaner water leads to longer seal life.
Additional Savings
On a typical pulp and paper mill sealing application, with the incoming flush water at 60° F, and mixing with process fluid at 140° F, the cost of energy for heating the flush water to process temperature costs $4,000 per year. The energy to evaporate this water at the end of the process costs an additional $9,000 per year. Ironically, this API Plan 32 water addition is not easily visible and so this huge water usage, and resulting waste of energy, is often not even recognized as such by the plant operator.
A water management tank system used with a double mechanical seal to replace the single mechanical seal in Figure 8, eliminates both the wasted water and energy by re-circulating and cooling the barrier water to the seal faces.
CASE HISTORY #1: Tanks, Double Seal and Flow Fuse on Agitator
Guinness/Diageo, a major beer brewery in Dublin, Ireland, was experiencing failures of the single mechanical seals on their hot wort agitators about every 6 months. The vessels on which the agitators are mounted contain about 25,000 gallons each and must be drained completely for an overhaul, leading to a great deal of down time and lost production. When the seals failed, the wort leaked straight onto the floor, causing a loss of valuable product, as well as a safety hazard. Any proposed remedy had to also prevent the addition of water into the vessel, since dilution of the product was not allowed at this point in the process.
The proposed solution was a double mechanical seal with a water management system. Because the hot wort could not withstand dilution, the system includes the Flow Fuse automatic valve shown in Figures 9 and 10 below, which detects an abnormally high water flow rate and shuts off the plant water main supply to the tank system. This action protects the hot wort product by preventing water entry into the agitator in the event of an inboard mechanical seal failure.
The water management system package has been in place for 2 years with no seal failures (recall that the previous MTBF was six months). The payback period based only on the cost of repairs (not including lost production) was only 180 days.
CASE HISTORY #2: Tanks & Double Seals Replace API Plan 32 Single Seals
A pulp & paper mill in the USA uses API Plan 32 (Figure 8) to flush their single seals, with considerable energy required to (a) heat this flush water up to process temperatures, and (b) evaporate this excess water off at the end of the process. Five bleach filter pumps were fitted with water management tank systems and double seals in October 2008, and monitored over the following 9 months. First year savings (from energy, water, wastewater, and reliability) were calculated at $41,800, with an ROI payback on the investment cost (parts and labor) of the new tanks and seals of 1.2 years.
Spurred on by these excellent results, the paper mill has now completed a comprehensive mill survey to look for additional savings opportunities. A total of 604 pumps/seals were surveyed, and 144 pumps (24% of total) were deemed to be “highly energy inefficient”. A capital project is being considered to convert these 144 pumps to double seals and tanks. Annual savings are conservatively estimated to be $473,000 per year, with water savings of 174 million gallons per year.
CASE HISTORY #3 : Tanks Replace API Plan 54 Water-to-Drain
At a food processing operation with a total of 6,300 pumps, water management tank systems have been installed on 1,310 (20% of total) of the most arduous “bad actor” pumps over a six year period. Of the 1,310 upgrades, 750 (57%) are running with no failures since the upgrades began in 2001. Prior to the upgrades the seal life for the population of 1,310 pumps was 2.58 years. After the water management systems were installed, the seal life improved to 3.42 years.
The upgraded population of pumps had 2,127 failures prior to the upgrade, and only 1,059 failures after the upgrade (during the six year period). Using an average cost of a pump repair of $2,500, we find the following savings in avoided repair costs:
Cost of repairs prior to Upgrade: 2,127 failures X $2,500/repair = $5,317,500
Cost of repairs after Upgrade: 1,059 failures X $2,500/repair = $2,647,500
Repair Costs Avoided: $2,670,000
Total cost of the 1,310 water management systems: $1,345,000
The savings to the equipment owner, based on equipment life alone, resulting from the upgrade to water management systems is thus $2,670,000 - $1,345,000 = $1,325,000. Additional savings have been realized from the 1,310 pumps X 1.7 million gallons per pump per year = 2.2 Billion gallons of water saved per year.
Summary
Water management tank systems, used in conjunction with double mechanical seals on pumps, agitators, and mixers, will generate significant cost savings due to:
• Virtually no water usage and no associated costs for either buying city water or treatment
of pond water. Savings of 1.7 million gallons of water per pump, per year have been
frequently documented when used on API Plan 54.
• No waste water treatment and disposal; again, as much as 1.7 million gallons per pump
per year on API Plan 54.
• No energy needed to heat the flush water introduced into the process up to process
temperatures using an API Plan 32.
• No energy needed to boil/evaporate added flush water from the product (Plan 32).
• Increased pump lifetime and reduced pump overhaul costs.
• Less downtime and associated lost production.
These tank systems are pressurized by the plant water main to 1 bar (15 psi) above the pump stuffing box pressure. The tanks use no moving parts, simply relying on the “thermo-syphon” process to circulate hot water away from the mechanical seal, release the heat to atmosphere, and return cool water to the mechanical seal. This clean, re-circulated water extends the life of the mechanical seal and the uptime of the pump by flushing solids away from the seal faces, as well as cooling the seal faces. The systems are maintenance-friendly, requiring no external compressed air for pressurization, and do not require any manual intervention for refilling.
The standard flow indicator gives a quick visual indication of an inboard seal failure, which is difficult and costly to identify otherwise. An optional Flow Fuse will shut off the plant water supply when it detects an abnormally high flow of water, such as that caused by an inboard seal failure.
ROI payback periods for water management tank systems with double mechanical seals are typically 6 to 12 months, after which the tank systems continue to generate large savings for the remainder of their 10 to 20 year lifetimes.
Chris Rehmann is Marketing Manager for AESSEAL, Inc., (www.aesseal.com), who design and manufacture mechanical seals, seal support systems, and bearing protection, and sell these products from offices in 32 countries. Chris earned a BSEE from the University of Notre Dame, and held various international management positions with an oilfield engineering firm for 15 years before joining AESSEAL’s North American headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee in 2002. He can be reached at chris.rehmann@aesseal.com.
All illustrations courtesy of AESSEAL, Inc., Rockford, TN, USA. Special thanks go to Cargill and Tim Goshert for their valuable contributions to this article, to Guinness/Diageo brewery for providing information and approval to use Case History #1, and to Terence McCarthy and Jonathan Broderick of AESSEAL, Ireland.
Reduce The Red By Going Green.pdf
Looking Up
by Ricky Smith, CMRP
Most companies have reduced costs during these tough economic times in order to survive – shutting down equipment, laying off or furloughing staff, extending time between rebuilds and preventive maintenance – without thinking about the preparation they should be taking in order to take advantage of the economic turnaround. There will be winners and losers once the world economy turns around. Companies that are prepared will win by shutting down their competition and demonstrating even higher profits than before the economic downturn. This can be accomplished by focusing on “optimizing asset integrity at optimal cost”.
Do You Want to be a Leader or a Laggard When the Economy
Turns Around?
Many industries have advanced maintenance and reliability in their operation and have taken great strides toward managing asset integrity. By applying known maintenance and reliability best practices, they have been able to optimize asset integrity, reduce total cost and, at the same time, reducing overall risk. But, most organizations are still trapped in the old way of thinking, and do not follow the true definition of asset integrity. One good way to know where your organization stands is to answer these questions:
1. Have your assets been ranked based on criticality?
The definition of critical equipment may vary from organization to organization. In fact, if it is not formalized, there may be several interpretations of equipment criticality within a single organization. The assumptions used to assess what equipment is critical are not technically based. As a result, when different individuals are asked to identify their critical equipment, they will likely select different pieces of equipment. Often we are told, “all of our equipment is critical!” Selections are based on individual opinions, lacking consensus or even basis in functional relevance to achieving business goals. The potential for equipment failure having significant safety, environmental or economic consequences may be overlooked.
A consistent definition for equipment criticality needs to be adopted. The definition used in the context of this article is: Critical equipment is that equipment whose failure has the highest potential impact on the business goals of the company.
Each asset is ranked based on environmental impact, customer impact, cost, and more. Remember 20% of your assets utilize 80% of your resources. Criticality ranking is influenced by all key function leaders in an organization and their decision impacts which equipment to focus on with a strong maintenance strategy, equipment replacement strategy, PM/PdM compliance and planned and scheduled maintenance work.
2. Can you measure Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of your critical assets?
This is a simple metric of measuring emergency or urgent work orders divided into time. If your maintenance department cannot provide this information in a matter of minutes for the total operation or a critical asset then there are two problems:
A) The maintenance software is not being used to its fullest potential, even though you
may have spent millions to install and maintain it
B) The maintenance department has not been educated in basic maintenance
management principles
3. Do you have 100% PM compliance and continue to have equipment breakdown?
It’s not too hard to figure this one out. Take a sample of your current PM inspection sheets and if they do not prevent a failure mode, detect the presence of a failure mode or aren’t regulatory in nature then you have a problem.
4. Are your total maintenance costs going down or are they flat?
If your maintenance costs continue to go up and you are adding staff or contractors, you are in what’s known as reactive maintenance mode. Education of and implementation of best practices is the solution. Having knowledge of common best practices will likely increase the frequency your maintenance staff and senior leadership chooses to apply in a given scenario. The maintenance process is like a puzzle; if you want to see the whole picture, then all elements must be in place and applied at the right time.
In this article, we will discuss what are known as best practices in Asset Integrity and how they are applied to prepare an organization for the economic turn around.
Let’s look at Shell’s Asset Integrity and Risk Management Statement:
We are committed to preventing incidents that put our people, neighbors, the environment and our facilities at risk. Asset integrity and process safety means making sure our facilities are well designed, safely operated and properly maintained.
Webster’s Dictionary contains the following definitions: Asset: anything of value that a corporation owns; and Integrity: firm adherence to a code. So, it follows that the definition of Asset Integrity is: anything of value that a corporation owns that is held in firm adherence to a code.
The Codes can be defined as ISO, ASQ, etc. The question is to what level of adherence is your company meeting these codes? Of course, you can say we satisfy environmental or safety codes by meeting PM compliance every month. However, is this the intent of a true PM Program? A preventive maintenance program is to prevent or predict a specific failure mode. All PM compliance tells us is that the PM is completed within some schedule, but it does not tell us if the PM is effective or not. If something is of value then a corporation should want to ensure it is well protected from failure, especially if the failure results in unacceptable costs.
Let’s look at how this entire Asset Integrity process works. Asset Integrity impacts safety, cost, and service to the customer. It also impacts your competition. If we look at the Market Survivor Model in Figure 1, it tells us a lot.
Any company will own a certain portion of market share. The market price drives profits and your future. With company “A” their market share is high, costs are low, and Asset Integrity is high, thus, they are prepared for economic turn around. Company “B” has a large part of market share, however, their cost is higher than Company “A” and this puts them at some risk. Their Asset Integrity is not optimized and thus their cost, along with risk, is higher. Company “C” has the smallest market share and the largest cost. A good example of a Company “C” would be Alcatel Telecommunications in 1999. The fiber optic cable business was growing at a rapid rate. By assessing the current level of their Asset Integrity program, we found key areas of improvement and closed the gap quickly. They went from being a “C” Company to an “A” Company within 6 months with a Return on Investment (ROI) of 8:1. This involved the application of known best practices in maintenance and reliability. Best practices are measurable and do impact the customer’s need in quality, delivery and price as seen in Figure 2.
Some of the Known Best Practices are:
Using the right metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to manage asset health effectively and efficiently – such as:
1. Mean Time Between Failures: Most companies don’t measure Mean Time Between
Failures (MTBF), even though it’s the most basic measurement that quantifies reliability.
MTBF is the average time an asset functions before it fails. MTBF should be used for:
• Overall Operation
• Area
• Asset Type
So, why don’t they measure MTBF? We will discuss those reasons a little later.
2. Percentage of Assets with No Identifiable Defects – This means you can Identify a
component defect early enough in the failure cycle where work can be planned and
scheduled effectively and without interrupting operations or customers
In this case everyone must understand the P-F Curve and how it impacts asset reliability (Figure 3). “P” on the P-F Curve is the point at which failure begins on a specific component which will lead to catastrophic failure of an asset. Once a failure begins, we call this a defect and the severity of the defect and criticality of the asset determines how quickly we respond to the problem. If the defect severity is low and asset criticality is low, then there is no panic.
Tracking the percent of assets with “NO Identifiable Defect” is key to knowing the current health of your assets. When the percentage of Assets with No Identifiable Defect is over 80%, there is no longer a need to track Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) because we are now in a proactive, not reactive mode. An asset that has an identifiable defect is said to be in a condition RED. An asset that does not have an identifiable defect is said to be in condition GREEN. That is it. It is that simple! There are no other “but’s”, “what if’s” or “if then’s”. Yellow is an unknown and must be determined to be either Green or Red within 72 hours. Figure 4 is an example of this metric.
Applying the right maintenance strategy at the right time – When an organization is focused on preventing and predicting failure modes, they can “Optimize Asset Integrity at an Optimal Cost” along with managing associated risks. My question to you is…
“Do you know the failure modes of your critical assets, and if so, are you applying the right maintenance strategy at the right time?”
An example of a failure mode would be pump bearing failure which could have been caused by poor alignment practices. If an inspection checklist for alignment had been followed, the problem would have been found. A failure modes analysis would identify Vibration Analysis as the most cost effective maintenance strategy for detecting alignment problems. Vibration Analysis will indicate if the shafts are in alignment, if a bolt is loose on the motor, if the pump has bearing stress, etc.
Failure of critical assets is unacceptable, as is spending too much money on reliability. The focus should be on applying the maintenance strategy, which predicts or prevents a failure mode in the most cost effective manner.
Identifying the Most Dominant Failure Pattern in your Operation – Many organizations today are focusing their resources on the most dominant failure pattern in their operation instead of reacting to problems. Identifying the most dominant failure pattern allows a company to focus on the common thread which has the largest impact on Asset Integrity. The US Navy conducted a study of their assets and found the most dominant failure pattern was infant mortality and considered the findings to be unacceptable. They put forth an effort to reduce infant mortality of their assets. Focusing on the dominant failure pattern allowed them to identify commonalities between different types of assets. They were successful in doing so as the percentage of Infant Failures dropped from 69% to 6%, which had a significant impact on their overall Asset Integrity. The failure patterns shown in Figure 5 were conducted back in the 1960s by United Airlines. These failure patterns have been found to be the same across different industry verticals.
Causes of Infant Mortality has been found to be the same in most industries. Here are a few examples of Infant Mortality:
Number 1: Lack of effective preventive, corrective and lubrication work procedures.
Number 2: Employees fail to follow the steps for a given procedure because either they do not agree with them or there is a lack of leadership follow-up.
Number 3: No contamination control – personnel apply grease into perfectly good bearings with contaminated grease on the end of lube fittings on the motors or the lube guns. Number 4: Not removing the relief plug on large motors to relieve oil grease to purge out of the motor. Walk out to a 30-100 HP motor and look for a plug under the motor bearing and see if the plug has ever been removed. My guess is that is hasn’t.
Number 5: Welding on equipment without attaching the ground lead within 6” of the weld. Most construction and maintenance personnel attach the ground for welding as close to the welding machine as possible, thus allowing current to flow to the path of least resistance (aluminum conduit, etc.). We do not want arcing between bearings, motor stators, electrical circuits, etc. If the welding lead and ground lead on your (or your contractor’s) welding machine is not the same length, then it will cause either infant mortality or random failures.
This list could go on and on. Just remember that if you could reduce the occurrence of this failure pattern by 50%, you will make a large impact on both asset reliability and cost. The ultimate goal is to extend the life of the equipment without seeing “P” on the P-F Curve. You can accomplish this by applying Precision Maintenance, which includes training craft personnel, effective work procedures, etc. Look at the I-P Curve in Figure 7, and decide on which curve your maintenance staff is currently working. This is exactly what the US Navy did, and their results speak for themselves.
I am sure that some people will say, “we do not have infant mortality”. Well, I hope that after reading this article, you actually investigate for yourself. If you would like a longer list, send me an e-mail and tell me which industry you are in, and I will share industry specific issues which cause infant mortality. The long I-P will never be obtained as long as the focus is not on the reduction of infant mortality by everyone from Project Engineering to Operators.
What a Successful Asset Integrity Manager Does
A successful Asset Integrity Manager focuses on providing reliability to an operation at the rate which its customers demand. However, we know this is not easy. Many organizations have spent millions of dollars performing Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) on their assets with what seems like very little Return on the Investment (ROI).
Doug Plucknette, a noted RCM expert and author states in his book Reliability Centered Maintenance using RCM Blitz, “The key to RCM was abandoning the philosophy of “preserve-equipment” in favor of “preserve-function”. Simply put, equipment became the means to an end, not the end in itself.” Doug has performed RCM on thousands of assets world wide and is noted among the best in the business.
Past studies have concluded that a maintenance policy based on operating age would have little, if any, impact on failure rates. Thus, applying time-based maintenance on equipment which has no “wear-out” pattern is futile. This conclusion forced a change in philosophy from, “It wasn’t broken, but we fixed it anyway” to “If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it”. These studies also concluded that:
1. Time-based maintenance works only for a small percentage of components, and then only
when there is solid information on their “wear-out” characteristics.
2. Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) is the preferred option. That means monitoring,
observing and taking non-intrusive actions, such as lubricating and cleaning, until a
conditionsignals that corrective action is necessary. This means striking the balance
between PM and Condition Monitoring (CBM) / Predictive Maintenance (PdM). We know it to be a fact that the cost to repair increases the longer we wait to correct a known defect, and that the time in the x-axis on the P-F Curve is an unknown. We can’t determine how long that interval is, nor can we tell when something is going to fail (Figure 8).
If you hear people say, “I think it will last a little longer,” when a defect has been identified using one of the Condition Monitoring technologies (IR, UE, Vibe etc.), then you are taking a great risk if you leave that equipment in service. You should be using asset criticality and defect severity to determine when to make the repair. Have you ever seen a large pump fail after the bearing defect has been identified 6 months earlier? It is all about risk and the consequence of that risk.
3. Run-to-failure is a viable tactic in situations where there is little economic and no safety
or environmental impact.
4. In a significant number of situations, the very act of maintenance itself causes subsequent
failure of the equipment. This should be more clearly defined. This suggests that even if
we do maintenance correctly, we still cause problems.
5. Non-intrusive maintenance tasks should be used instead of intrusive maintenance
whenever possible. In other words, don’t do any maintenance, except monitoring and
non-intrusive sustaining actions, until condition directs intrusive corrective action. A simple example is v-belt tension. The PM states “Check tension of Belt”. The equipment is stopped, the belt checked and found to be “loose”, so the mechanic tensions the belt using his hand as the tension gauge. It is highly probable he has over tensioned the belt because if he under-tensioned it you would hear the belt squeal when it returns to full speed and load. Over-tensioning of the belt will cause bearing failure. Why not use Infrared Inspection and look for belt slippage while the equipment is running (Figure 9)?
You must move from being a PM Centric organization to a truly PdM Centric organization if you ever want to obtain “Optimal Asset Integrity at Optimal Cost”. PdM is the most non-intrusive and precise method for conducting inspections while the machine is running under full load.
In his book, Plant Engineer’s Handbook, Keith Mobley links the following benefits to PdM:
• Maintenance costs - down by 50%
• Unexpected failures - reduced by 55%
• Repair and overhaul time - down by 60%
• Spare parts inventory - reduced by 30%
• 30% increase in machinery Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF)
• 30% increase in uptime
Now these numbers may seem high. But even if you take only a fraction of these benefits the financial impact of an effective PdM program at most organizations can easily reach into millions of dollars.
Despite what you may have heard, the foundation of a successful, comprehensive inspection program is simple: a detailed equipment list.
Why? Because your equipment list is the foundation for all of the key steps that follow. For example, a good list is essential for:
• Identifying how your equipment can fail (identifying failure modes)
• Choosing the right PdM technologies to apply to the asset
• Determining the ideal amount of PdM coverage for your operation
• Ranking the criticality of each piece of equipment
• Building databases for each PdM technology
• Determining PdM staffing levels
So if your list is incomplete or incorrect, everything that’s built from it will be flawed. Any shortcuts or inaccuracies will be exposed as big problems later. Figure 10 illustrates a sample of recommended technologies by equipment type for a specified environment.
In the last 40 years, no better method than RCM has been found for determining what maintenance should be performed to increase asset integrity. Four statistically significant studies have confirmed the validity of RCM.
In a survey conducted by Reliabilityweb.com in 2005, many companies offered the following excuses for the failure of their Reliability Centered Maintenance Implementations.
is too time and resource intense.”
“100% reliability is extremely expensive, difficult to attain, and not necessarily the right answer.”
“RCM is misunderstood to be software.”
“In the beginning, it was hard. And, it is still a challenge to steer the mind-set toward more
condition-based maintenance than time-based.”
“We always ran into the problem with implementation. In the few places where we
implemented it successfully, it was at the maintenance level. And recognition
for it was non-existent.”
“The system is very strong but too high level“
The truth is, there are many pitfalls in RCM. But few get revealed when an RCM project fails. You see, nobody wants to write an article or present a paper at a conference that reveals how money was wasted or about great visions that were never realized.
In order to ensure RCM works in an organization, you must focus on the systems that will give you the best Return on Investment (ROI). Simply put, RCM is a slam dunk when it comes to ROI for critical assets.
Begin your RCM effort by identifying the top 10% of your most critical assets. Once this list has been identified, you should now begin to measure Reliability on these assets; performing RCM analysis on those critical assets that have equipment-based operational, speed and throughput losses and thus reducing total cost of maintaining these assets by reducing contractors, overtime, maintenance parts, and fines. If you have selected a critical asset, your implemented RCM maintenance strategy will show measurable improvements with added improvements in Health, Safety and Environmental performance as well.
As a general rule, the success of your first RCM analysis will build the business case to complete RCM analysis on the remainder of your critical assets. In the simplest terms, RCM is a decision-making process which calls for answers to questions such as:
- What is this system supposed to do?
- How can it fail to do that?
- What causes it to fail?
- What happens when it does fail?
- Can we predict or prevent that from happening?
Getting the Tools in place - Funding, Staffing, Practices, and Reporting
Step 1 – Do not accept excuses for why you cannot transition an organization to the optimal maintenance model. Steven Covey once stated the following: “Your sphere of influence is very small, your area of concern is very large, focus on your sphere of influence and not on your area of concern and you will find your sphere of influence will grow.”
When an organization transitions from their current maintenance model to a more proactive one, you will find staffing is not a problem, costs are lower, and emergencies become a rare occurrence, however, you must take it one step at a time and follow the industry proven best practices. There are no excuses for following the wrong path.
Step 2 – Develop a business case for the reliability improvement process. Identify costs and Return on Investment based on known data. Involve senior leadership and the financial team in the business case development. You must have everyone sold on this idea of change or it will never happen. Too many organizations have had many false starts. You should never start a journey without everyone knowing success is the only option. Step 3 – Develop a master plan that focuses on results and moving an organization to having a balanced PM and PdM program using the Proactive Work Flow Model (Figure 11). In this plan you want financial targets and metrics to ensure you are receiving the benefits expected. You want short term results with long term gains. Note the Work Flow includes Management of Change (MOC) procedures to ensure consistency of processes and data. In addition, a process for a Failure Report Analysis and Corrective Active System (FRACAS) is identified for ensuring failure data is analyzed and used for decision making. This means implementing known best practices at the right time and not trying “new ideas” which are not proven.
Step 4 – Ensure you have identified Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and financial targets. Make sure you have leading KPIs and lagging KPIs developed which equal the expected financial Return on Investment (ROI). These metrics and financial targets must be aligned with the process changes being made. In financial targets we want “hard dollar” savings and not “soft dollars”. Here is an example of what I mean: While working at the Pentagon with the US Army I was in a meeting and a Lean Six Sigma Director was reporting to his General officer (3 star General) and he stated they he had exceeded their expected goal of $70 Million Dollar savings and the General looked at his comptroller and ask if he had seen the savings and, if so, he wanted to use this money for a critical project. The comptroller stated he had not seen any monetary savings. Needless to say, the General was not too happy about this situation. Remember only “hard dollar”, verifiable savings can reported.
Figure 12 shows some known benchmarks in the chemical processing industry.
Benchmarking can be deceiving, but it is a great way to know where you stand in relation to other companies. The metric is the amount of money spent annually maintaining assets, divided by the Replacement Asset Value (RAV) of the assets being maintained, expressed as a percentage. This metric allows one to compare the expenditures for maintenance with other plants of varying size and value, as well as to benchmarks. The RAV as the denominator is used to normalize the measurement given that different plants vary in size and value. Here is what we know:
• Companies who are leaders have an RAV of less than 3.5% for Maintenance
• Companies who are in a reactive state have an RAV between 3.6-14%
Where does your organization you stack up?
The definition has been defined by the Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP) after years of research. Here is SMRP’s definition:
Guidelines provide additional information or further clarification on component terms used in SMRP Best Practice Metrics. This guideline is for Replacement Asset Value (RAV).
A. Definition: The Replacement Asset Value (RAV) is defined as the cost that would be incurred, in today’s dollars, to replace the facility and equipment in its current configuration. It is intended to represent the realistic value to replace the existing assets at new value.
B. Purpose: RAV is used as the denominator in a number of calculations to normalize cost performance of facilities of various sizes within a given industry. These calculations are used to determine the performance of the maintenance and reliability function relative to other facilities within its industry.
C. Inclusions:
• Building envelope
• All physical assets (equipment) that must be maintained on an ongoing basis
• The value of improvements to grounds (provided these must be maintained on
an ongoing basis)
• Capitalized engineering costs
D. Exclusions:
• Value of land on which the facility is situated
• The value of working capital:
– Raw material inventory
– Work-in-process inventory
– Finished goods inventory
– Spare parts inventory
• Capitalized interest
• Pre-operational expense
• Investments included in construction of the facility that are not part of the facility assets
• Mine development
Replacement Asset Value Formula:
Best Practice Leaders typically have an Annual Maintenance Cost per RAV in the 2%-3.5% range, while Reactive Organizations tend to run anywhere from 4%-14%.
Look at this example of the cost a company incurs by not following codes and standards identified to optimize Asset Integrity.
This is not including increase equipment performance and output which can be 2-10 times these losses.
Step 5 – Educate everyone from top leadership to operators on your plan and what your organization’s future state looks like. You want operations to understand they own reliability integrity as an equal partner with maintenance and of course engineering. This is a three legged stool which will fall if not supported properly.
Step 6 – Execute the plan and always meet targets and goals set by the plan. Ensure everyone sees the KPIs and financial targets which were established, and thus always knows the “score in the game”.
In summary, organizations can be successful if they apply best practices at the right time and tie all changes to “hard savings”. Remember, the ultimate goal is “optimal asset integrity at optimal cost” by following best practices.
Ricky has been involved with maintenance for over 30 years as a maintenance manager, maintenance supervisor, maintenance engineer, maintenance training specialist, maintenance consultant and is a well known published author. Today he is a Principal Advisor at GPAllied, LLC. Ricky has worked with maintenance organizations in hundreds of facilities, industrial plants, etc, world wide in developing reliability, maintenance and technical training strategies. He has worked for Exxon Company USA, Alumax (this plant was rated the best in the world for over 18 years), Kendall Company, and Hercules Chemical providing the foundation for his reliability and maintenance experience. Ricky Smith is Vice Chairman of the Oil, Gas, and Petrochemical SIG for the Society of Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP), is the Reliability Engineering Discipline Manager for PetroSkills and is well known as a Reliability Advocate in Asset Reliability and Process Integrity in the Middle East and around the world. Ricky is the co-author of “Rules of Thumb for Maintenance and Reliability Engineers”, “Lean Maintenance” and “Industrial Repair, Best Maintenance Repair Practices” and “Planning and Scheduling Made Simple”. Ricky holds certification as Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional (CMRP) from the Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals (SMRP) as well as a Certified Plant Maintenance Manager (CPMM) from the Association of Facilities Engineering (AFE) and is also a Six Sigma Black Belt. Ricky lives in Charleston, SC with his wife. Aside form spending time with his 3 children and 3 grandchildren, Ricky enjoys kayaking, fishing, hiking and archaeology. He can be reached at rsmith@gpallied.com
Positioning For An Economic Recovery.pdf
Focal Point Links
Uptime Digital Editions
Must Read Books
Recent Posts
- Don’t Work Harder, Work Smarter
- Control Your CMMS to Cut Costs
- Maintenance and Steven Covey
- Tap Into Infrared
- Reduce the Red by Going Green
- Looking Up
- Measuring Performance
- Finding Hidden Machinery Faults With Operating Deflection Shape Analysis
- RCM & the Sub-Prime Mortgage Meltdown
- Lessons Learned Implementing an Infrared Program
Recent Comments