Terry Wireman's Blog

How Reliable is YOUR “Bungee Cord”?

I just caught this on the news about the young lady from Australia that had her bungee cord break while jumping off a bridge in Africa.  I wouldn’t have chosen this subject, but she survived the fall and the news report said that she would fully recover. 

 The background was interesting, since in the follow-on information, it was revealed that this business has been operating for over 10 years.  In fact, 150,000 jumps without an incident.  So how closely are the design parameters of the bungee cords tracked?  Is there a MTBF for the cord?  How closely is it tracked?  Is there a preventive maintenance inspection periodically conducted?  Is there a work order history of each PM or repair/ replacement?  How do they manage the life cycle of a bungee cord?

 As the bungee cord gets close to the end of it’s life cycle, do they increase the number of inspections?  As it gets close to the end of it’s life cycle, does someone say “we know if needs to be replaced, but we are in the middle of tourist season and can’t afford the downtime to change the cord”?  or even worse “we decided to change to a run to failure policy on the bungee cords this year”. 

 You may feel that this is a ridiculous line of reasoning; however, decisions are made in facilities and plants every day that can also have life or death consequences.  We constantly read in the United States (and around the world) of incidents with food processing, oil and gas plants, or even light manufacturing where poor asset/equipment related decisions are made and someone (even the end consumer) is severely injured or killed.  The typical responses?  “We can’t afford the downtime to do that.  We can’t afford to maintain that asset/ equipment – we run it to failure.”

 The irresponsible decisions that are being made in many facilities and plants today are typically being made by those with little or no technical knowledge of the equipment/ assets.  Even when the technical personnel in the facility or plant are involved in the decision, it is often overridden by the operational or financial decision makers.  Maybe some of them should take up bungee jumping…

 One final note, if they do take up bungee jumping, make sure they try the bridge in Africa.  The river below the bridge is also crocodile infested…

Objective or Subjective - ???

In my last blog, I referenced an ASTN article on the value of standards.  In this blog, I want to discuss whether or not a standard has merit.  Merit is defined as “worth or excellence”.  Unfortunately, a standard does not have worth unless it has been applied to a business and produces some benefit; then it has merit. 

 One of the criteria in evaluating standards is whether or not it will deliver reproducible results.  This is the reason that standard cannot be vague or obscure.  If they are, then they become subjective – based on the company’s or consultant’s perspective on the standard.  This is the main reason why any standard must be prescriptive enough to avoid a “rubber stamp” approach.  This would allow anyone who wants to be certified under a certain standard to be certified whether they met the “intent” of the standard or not.

 One can consider some of the variances within the inspections performed under the OSHA standards.  If the particular part of an OSHA standard is open to interpretation, one inspector will write a citation, where another will simply pass over an infraction. This has been common experience in many companies and is particularly evident when the OSHA inspectors have different backgrounds.

How does this apply to the proposed ISO-55000 standard?  If this proposed standard is to be of any value to the maintenance and reliability community, it must be prescriptive enough to eliminate most of the subjectivity.  One can only imagine the variances in certification if a registrar had a TPM background vs. a RCM background.  How much subjectivity would there be if the proposed standard was vague or obscure? 

 It is only hoped that the proposed ISO-55000 has sufficient detail to make it useful to the asset management community; especially the maintenance and reliability organizations.  

Regulatory Agencies and Standards

There was an interesting article written recently titled “Choosing Standards Based on Merit”. Some of the points made in the article (which is available at http://www.astm.org/ABOUT/images/Choosing_Standards.pdf ). The article focused on why certain standards may or may not be adopted and how government agencies can adopt standards.

In Box 1, in the middle of the article, the author wrote that an agency can simply adopt a standard by incorporating it by referencing it. The example of OSHA adopting the National Electrical code was used.

Another point was made under the section “deference in lieu of developing a mandatory standard”.. It was that “An agency may decide that it does not need to issue a mandatory regulation because voluntary compliance with either an existing standard or one developed for the purpose will suffice for meeting the needs of the agency.”

If ISO-55000 (The proposed standard still under development) is completed, how will it impact regulatory agencies? How will OSHA, EPA, FDA, etc. view the proposed ISO-55000 standard? What if OSHA, the EPA, the FDA decides to reference the proposed standard? What if they, as part of their inspections, begin to ask if your organization is voluntarily complying with the proposed ISO-55000?

Does your organization currently have asset management policies and procedures in place? Does your organization currently track the life cycle history (including costs) on assets that are core to it doing business?

There are a lot more questions than answers in this blog. However, they are all questions that any maintenance/ reliability/ asset manager might want to start asking…

-Next blog – from the same article – What is Merit?

Did We Pay Attention in History Class?

I was just re-reading some material before the TAG Meeting for the proposed ISO 55000 meeting in Washington in a few weeks. One of the books I was reading was Systems Engineering Management by Benjamin Blanchard. One of his statements caught my attention.

It was a comment he made about Total Productive Maintenance. He said "TPM is an integrated, top down,system oriented, life cycle approach to maintenance with the objective of maximizing productivity." This is interesting, since in most companies, TPM is viewed as operators doing maintenance.

While this will be a component of TPM, it is interesting in this text and many from Japan, it is not the primary focus of TPM. Many of the texts on TPM are decades old...

Did we pay attention in history class? Apparently Not...

What if Maintenance treated Operations the way Airlines treat their Passengers?

Having just completed a week of travel, I encountered several “hiccups” during the week.  These events caused me to think about maintenance and operations in a plant or facility.  What if maintenance treated operations the way that the airlines treat their customers?  Let’s consider a couple examples.

 Suppose that operations wanted to exceed the capacity of their equipment?  Well, maintenance could then do what the airlines do when a passenger checks a bag with an excessive weight – charge them.  For example, one airline has the following rules:

• 51-70 lbs  $100 each
• 71-99.9 lbs $200 each
• Depending on the route up to $400

So let’s propose this – If operations wants to run:

• 10% above the asset’s design capacity –
  • 10% of the value of the hourly production for the time capacity is exceeded
• 20% above the asset’s design capacity –
  • 20% of the value of the hourly production for the time capacity is exceeded
• Over 20% above the asset’s design capacity
  • 50% of the value of the hourly production for the time capacity is exceeded

We could then take the total amount and deposit it a special capital equipment fund to purchase the new assets that are going to be required to replace the assets operations just wore out.

 Let’s suppose operations wanted to make their equipment easier to operate or more ergonomically correct.  We could follow the airlines example for “special seating” (or actually seats with the proper amount of seat space).  The airlines charge from $5.00 to $75.00 for the extra seating space.  So to make the equipment more “operable” maintenance could charge the same $5.00 to move an indicator light and up to $75.00 to move a switch.  The funds could be collected from each operator and the maintenance department could purchase special tools and equipment to make their jobs easier.

 I probably shouldn’t cover the topic of installing pay toilets…

 This might work with the airlines – but I don’t think it will “fly” in our plants.  But then, maybe it should… 

PM Cancellation is not a Crime!

The last few blogs, I have been stressing the importance of preventive maintenance (PM) compliance.  Yet, companies still try to find ways around the necessary “stick to the schedule” for a PM program.

 The PMs that are rescheduled based on last completed date are PMs that make it easy for individuals to skip PMs without affecting their PM compliance KPI.  However, this is a short sighted approach.

 What if a company would actually have a fixed PM schedule and adhere to it?  If a monthly PM becomes due and it can’t be completed, cancel it (most systems will write a cancellation record to the equipment history file), and let the system produce the next month’s PM task. 

 Now, when there is an equipment failure, it is very easy to see that I completed the PM in Jan – missed February – completed March – Missed April – Missed May and then had an equipment failure at the start of June.  So my PM completion rate is at 40%. 

 Now when the maintenance/ reliability engineer reviews the equipment failure for a root cause, they have some data to work with.  When they see that the PM program, which was designed to eliminate this failure mode, only has a 40% completion rate, they can derive the proper solution.  It will likely be to improve PM compliance.

 Also, when PMs are cancelled, there should be a reason code as to why the PM was cancelled – Operations would not release the equipment, insufficient maintenance resources, excessive reactive work, etc.  This will allow the proper solution to the PM compliance problem to be recognized and implemented.

 Preventive maintenance programs are not that difficult to design – However, they can be difficult to execute.  The real goal should be to improve equipment performance, not meet a preventive maintenance KPI goal.

PM Execution - The Weak Link

Preventive Maintenance (PM) programs fail due to the lack of execution of the PM tasks at the proper frequency. While there are many ways to eliminate unnecessary PM tasks, such as PDM tools and RCM techniques, there are still PM tasks that must be accomplished by the maintenance and operations organization. Why is it that these PMs are not executed properly? It is due to not having the proper schedule and properly utilizing the available resources.

While it is true that most organization will start out properly, they eventually slip into poor practices that lead to a failure to execute the PM program. For example, consider the approach of load balancing the PM program. This is a technique that adjusts the schedule of the PM program so that almost the same level of resources are required each scheduling period (weekly). For example, for the next 52 weeks, 2 mechanics will spend 40 hours performing PMs, which will keep the program in compliance. The same can be done for other crafts (electrical) or perhaps it is a multi-skilled organization and the demand is not by craft, but rather by area. Once the schedule and resources are balanced, the PM program is ready to begin.

However, other demands develop for the PM resources, such as breakdowns or very high priority work. The PM resources are diverted from their schedule (a failure to prioritize and execute) and some PMs are not completed on time. This leads to the PM schedule being "slipped". If the PMs are re-scheduled based on last completion date, the balanced schedule now becomes unbalanced. This leads to a high number of PM resources being required one week and virtually none required in other weeks. This unbalanced situation will lead to further degradation of the PM compliance, since the PM resources are now diverted to other tasks on their "light" week. Soon the other tasks take priority over the PM work, even when there are "heavy" PM work loads during the week. This creates even further non-compliance of the PM program, which leads to a high percentage of reactive work. This is a downward "death spiral" leading to failure of the PM program.

How can this be stopped? Simply stated, the PM work must be given priority over all other work. Unless it is completed as scheduled, the PM program will slip and start into the "death spiral". Once it starts into the "death spiral", it is difficult to stop. Dedicated PM resources and a balanced PM schedule are required to stay in compliance. How does one solve the problem with PMs being re-scheduled based on last completion date?

This will be the topic for the next blog…

PM Execution – The Reason PM Programs Fail

You can visit almost any company and they will tell you that they have a Preventive Maintenance (PM) program.  They may even have the documents and a proposed schedule.  Yet, when you look at their work activity distribution, they are performing mostly reactive, unscheduled work.  In addition, when you tour the plant, looking at the equipment, it is in poor condition, showing the results of the neglect of the PM basics. 

Why is there this disconnect between what an organization says it is doing compared to the activities it is actually performing?  There are two basic reasons.  The first is that those performing the work do not know the maintenance basics.  When performing a PM inspection or service, they do not recognize out of tolerance conditions.  For example, this is a common line on a PM inspection:  “Check the motor to see if it is hot”.  Now it becomes the opinion of the one performing the PM as to what is “hot”.  Is hot 104 degrees F?  Is it 130 degrees F?  Is hot 180 degrees F?  Also, how do they measure the temperature?  Do they have hand help thermographic equipment?  Is there a thermometer on the measuring point?  The list of these types of omissions in a PM program would be almost endless.

Secondly, the more reactive a maintenance organization becomes, the more difficult it is to perform PMs.  The labor resources are consumed by the reactive work with little time to perform the PMs.  With the limited time available, the individual performing the PM inspection or service, will give it a cursory attempt, while waiting for the next breakdown.  However, the effectiveness will be limited, leading to further breakdowns, leading to even poorer PMs being performed, leading to more breakdowns, leading to etc., etc.,.

How can the execution of PM programs be improved, thus eliminating these problems?  Next blog…

 

The Myth of “Maintenance-Induced” Failures

Much has been said about “maintenance-induced” failures in the media lately.  However, just what is a maintenance-induced failure?  It has been explained that this type of failure occurs when a maintenance technician is doing an intrusive inspection or service on a piece of equipment and induces or causes a failure.  This is due to the maintenance technician putting the piece of equipment back together incorrectly and it fails shortly after being put back in service.

So let’s stop and consider this scenario.  If take my automobile into the repair shop and have the brakes checked, the auto technician does a partial disassembly of the car to see the brakes properly and determine their actual condition.  Do I worry about a “auto-technician” induced failure to my brakes?  Likely not.  If I take my watch to a jewelry store to be cleaned (yes, not all of us have digital watches), do I worry about a “jewelry technician” induced failure with my watch?

Those are simple examples, so let’s use some additional complicated ones.  Have you ever had a transmission fail in your automobile?  Did you replace it with a new transmission or a rebuilt one?   For most of us, the answer will be “a rebuilt one”. Why?  Because the new one is much more expensive!  Did we worry about a “transmission technician” induced failure? 

Likewise, did anyone ever have an automobile engine fail?  Did you have it rebuilt? Did you buy a different rebuilt engine?  Did you buy a new engine?  Again, the answer will probably be the rebuilt engine.  Why, because a new one will cost a lot more.  Did you worry about a “technician induced” failure in the rebuilt engine?  The answer is no.

Now in these scenarios (and many others) we trust the person who performed the “maintenance” on the inspected and rebuilt components.  Why don’t we do that in our plants or facilities?  Why do we allow equipment to run to failure or require very expensive technology to monitor when we could perform good manual inspections and services and achieve the same goal?  It is due to the fact that we do not trust the skills of our current technicians.

Why don’t we train our technicians to the level of proficiency so that we can send them out to do a preventive maintenance inspection and/or service on our equipment and be confident there will be no “Maintenance-Induced” failures? 

More next week…

Progress – Slow and Steady –

A site that should be periodically visited by all maintenance and reliability professionals is http://www.uspc251tag.org   This site is where you can get the latest news on the proposed ISO-55000 standards. 

Most companies have heard about the PAS-55 standard- which is the UK’s Publically Available Standard for asset management.  The proposed ISO-55000 standard is the first attempt to have an asset management standard. 

Why is this important?  Most companies are evaluated by their investors, based on their profit compared to the investment in the assets.  Properly managed assets will help companies lower the denominator in this calculation.  So the company’s financial standing  and perception on Wall Street can be impacted. 

In addition, a company’s safety, environmental, and quality process can all be impacted by well-managed or poorly managed assets.  Since assets are key to business performance, wouldn’t it be beneficial to have standard processes?  Why not stop by the above web site and check out what is going on in this area?  Better yet, why not get involved – Information on how to be involved is also on this site.  You might find it rewarding, both for you and your company.