When conducting a PMO review, it is important to consider factors beyond just your current PM program. Key considerations include: 1. Assessing if the operating environment has changed since the PM program was implemented. 2. Examining any significant updates or changes to the equipment, such as upgrades or configuration adjustments. 3. Monitoring the reliability performance to ensure it is meeting expectations and not trending downward. 4. Evaluating if any components are becoming outdated or obsolete. 5. Determining the equipment's remaining lifespan before retirement. By addressing these questions, you can determine the justification for a PMO review.
Quote from Eugene: "When is the best time to start a PM Optimization project?" Hello everyone, one of the major challenges faced by companies utilizing physical assets for revenue generation is the lack of focus in their PM programs. The issues begin even before the equipment is operational, when maintenance professionals are not adequately involved in the design process. These problems escalate as project budgets are slashed, leading to reduced design capabilities and rushed commissioning processes. Consequently, there is often insufficient time for proper maintenance analysis, which is then hurriedly conducted without a consistent method or coordination between various departments. This results in a conservative and risk-averse approach, leading to knee-jerk reactions to equipment failures.
Our analysis, based on PMO2000â„¢, of thousands of equipment items across more than 200 sites reveals that less than 50% of existing maintenance activities meet RCM task selection criteria. Typically, 10 to 20% of necessary tasks are missing from the maintenance schedules. Some maintenance tasks are overly intense, while others are not intensive enough. Organizations often find themselves performing double the necessary preventive and predictive maintenance activities.
I recommend conducting a formal PM Optimization if your equipment strategies have been haphazardly put together or solely based on vendor recommendations. It is essential to maintain this process regularly and have zero tolerance for unexpected failures. A structured approach, like Quadrant 2, designed for planned work rather than reactive maintenance, is crucial for effective PMO.
I suggest performing a formal review six months after the initial analysis, followed by annual or biennial reviews, unless modifications are made to the process or equipment. For more information, please visit our website dedicated to PM Optimization.
Steve, based on previous posts, it is known that you have experience working for a Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) company before establishing your own Operation and Maintenance Control System (OMCS). Of the 200 sites you have mentioned, how many have had their maintenance programs optimized through RCM by you, and how many have requested a review using a Preventive Maintenance Optimization (PMO) approach afterward? Have you noticed any significant differences in the results?
I have experience delivering RCM programs in the past but have not revisited any programs I facilitated. Currently, my team is conducting a PMO review of an RCM analysis completed five years ago for a major oil and gas company. The maintenance program recommended by the previous RCM analysts was not implemented due to poor execution. This situation highlights the importance of ensuring that RCM analysis is done correctly, as some programs claiming to be RCM may not adhere to the standard decision logic. It is crucial to periodically review RCM studies and make necessary changes based on updated information and new technological advancements. As professionals, it is essential to conduct PMO reviews not just annually, but whenever there are changes in plant operations or new modifications introduced. Thanks for the insightful discussion, Josh and Eugene. Regards, Steve
- 02-07-2024
- Gregory Hughes
Are you assessing the impact of PMO outcomes on more than 200 locations? Are these locations capable of maintaining their dependability and accessibility over a 10-year period? What are the challenges faced when implementing PMO strategies?
Quote: Have you conducted a thorough assessment of the performance of PMO efforts across more than 200 sites? Josh, we have formally evaluated only a few of them. This evaluation usually occurs under long-term contracts or by request. Typically, we are only asked to assess when initial results fall short of expectations. The main reasons for ineffective results usually include:
1. Lack of operator involvement and formal operator maintenance tasks, which are crucial in process industries where operators handle a significant portion of the PM workload.
2. Delayed approvals leading to stagnant work.
3. Inadequate collection of plant performance data and failure reviews after breakdowns.
4. Poor communication, though we strive to address this issue diligently. However, in cases where clients neglect communication, a recovery plan becomes necessary.
I can confidently state that the effectiveness of PMO is notably higher than that of RCM. While my previous company struggled with RCM implementation, PMO has shown remarkable success, with most pilot programs transitioning into corporate rollouts. Utilizing a standardized approach like PMO across global sites makes more sense than implementing individual RCM strategies.
In response to your query about the sustainability of site reliability and availability over 10 years, our company has only recently reached the 10-year mark, with PMO gaining credibility around 1996. While a decade may be too soon to assess long-term sustainability, I have observed instances where sites fail to maintain their PMO initiatives. For example, one plan was disrupted due to a corporate buyout. Another case involved a change in management approach that initially threatened PMO but eventually led to its establishment as a corporate standard.
In conclusion, external factors can impact the success of initiatives like PMO. However, when implemented effectively, PMO proves to be a fast and efficient maintenance program. Its streamlined process yields results comparable to or better than traditional methods such as SAE Compliant RCM. The shorter implementation time garners quicker acceptance from employees, making it a valuable asset for companies seeking improved reliability and maintenance practices.
Thank you for your interest, Josh. I am always open to discussing the benefits of PMO. Platforms like this forum provide valuable opportunities to exchange viewpoints and insights. While opinions may differ, I welcome constructive dialogue on the subject. -Steve
Fortunately, the evaluation of criticality was halted after close to two years. Are criticality assessments synonymous with prioritization assessments? In my view, they are interconnected, but this is subjective. Should they be avoided, and if so, why? This is solely my perspective, and I believe I have a case study that validates conducting a criticality assessment. Nevertheless, I am uncertain, perhaps less than 50%, on how the PMO process operates - maybe my thoughts on criticality/prioritization assessments are already ingrained in the PMO. My exposure to PMO was limited to the 2006 RCM conference in Las Vegas. My observations reveal that major incidents at sites I have been associated with are not typically linked to equipment that is regularly maintained or had significant maintenance costs or throughput losses. These incidents lead to substantial production losses and maintenance expenses - where production loss outweighs maintenance costs by a large margin. I have witnessed maintenance costs ranging from 5 to 10 million when standard maintenance budgets are between 10 to 60 million. These catastrophic events are considered as extraordinary expenses, spread out over time, and are succeeded by completely different failures deemed non-routine. One specific instance involved a treatment system managing waste products. Through a form of criticality analysis, we identified the absence of a maintenance plan for a seemingly insignificant drive chain, gearbox, and sprockets. Neglecting these minor components could lead to over 5 million dollars in lost production over the next two decades. Despite never previously allocating resources to these components, identifying the need for regular inspections and stocking spare parts was crucial in averting potential production losses. The associated costs of inspections and spare parts are minimal. Failure to detect and rectify the condition within 48 to 72 hours could result in a production outage amounting to 5 million dollars. Future plans include monitoring the drive motor for any amperage drop indicating a potential drive failure, with an estimated cost of $4,000. The likelihood of a failure in the drive chain, sprockets, or gearbox within the plant's lifespan of 10 to 20 years necessitates proactive measures. Is there a PMO analysis component that identifies opportunities lacking historical PMs and associated costs? The website did not provide a clear answer, as it primarily emphasized existing PMs and failure data.
- 03-07-2024
- Yvonne Mitchell
Quote: I am interested in understanding the difference between criticality assessments and prioritization assessments. While I see them as interconnected from my perspective, I want to explore if they should be approached differently. Hi Jaz, Here are my personal insights: Criticality assessments are valuable, but it is crucial to establish the purpose beforehand to avoid unnecessary complications. If the goal is to prioritize equipment for RCM / PMO review, it should be a quick process lasting no more than a day. Most maintenance professionals can identify important equipment in less than an hour. Some organizations spend months on this task when they could have analyzed half of the critical items in that time. When determining corrective work priorities, a more careful approach with sufficient time is needed. Prioritizing equipment for PM purposes may not be effective, as cost-effective PM should be applied to all equipment. While criticality assessments are useful for spare parts management, they are only one aspect of the equation. I support criticality assessments, but I believe their role in determining PM strategies is often overemphasized. Regards, Steve
quote: From my perspective, I believe I have a compelling case study that highlights the importance of conducting a criticality assessment. While I am not completely certain about how the PMO process operates, I suspect that my thoughts on conducting a criticality/prioritization assessment may already be integrated into PMO procedures. My exposure to PMO was limited to a brief glimpse at the 2006 RCM conference in Las Vegas. This likely occurred during the presentation that was interrupted by a fire alarm test, causing everyone to evacuate 25 minutes into the session.
In essence, the PMO process is similar to RCM in the sense that criticality is evaluated based on the consequences of failure. I personally find it more logical to assess criticality at the failure mode level rather than at the equipment level. Some RCM processes incorporate criticality to expedite the process, but I believe this is a subpar approach driven by the desire to streamline the process due to the time-intensive nature of RCM. If RCM were less time-consuming, fewer analysts would likely resort to using this shortcut.
Although there are RCM approaches that use criticality to determine maintenance frequency, I generally do not support this tactic. In my opinion, criticality should not be the sole factor driving maintenance decisions in most cases. Steve
- 03-07-2024
- Jasmine Howard
Steve, I appreciate your feedback on the criticality assessment process. Our thoughts align closely, with my estimated completion time being 2 days. The criticality assessment, along with historical data and equipment with scheduled maintenance, will form the basis for analysis. The final criticality listing will be determined by the results of a reliability analysis, considering factors such as equipment requiring spare parts or overtime for corrective maintenance. This information is crucial in preventing system failures and prioritizing maintenance tasks effectively.
It is essential to conduct reliability and availability analyses to determine the most efficient preventive maintenance actions. Without a structured approach, there will be inconsistencies in stock levels, maintenance priorities, and the overall maintenance strategy across the site. Learning from past experiences, such as the confusion over fire alarm procedures, underscores the importance of a cohesive approach to maintenance planning and execution.
View the attached quote: Is there an analysis step in the PMO process that identifies opportunities without existing costs or a historical PM associated with them? I reviewed the website but could not find a clear answer - it mainly focuses on current PM and failure data. Some PMO processes only involve reviewing current practices, which is suitable if that aligns with the company's goals. In the mid-90s, the US Nuclear Power industry had this approach. However, if the goal is to establish a comprehensive and effective PM program, it is crucial to include missing information (such as Failure modes) in the list derived from the current PM. In our developed process PMO2000, this is achieved through a thorough review of failure history (often with experienced individuals due to limited documented data) and technical documentation like P&ID's or circuit drawings. This method is similar to how RCM identifies failure modes, so if everything else remains constant, PMO will yield similar results to RCM. PMO2000 aims to list all likely failure modes requiring PM. I am confident in stating that PMO2000 produces the same maintenance program as an SAE JA 1011 compliant RCM program for any physical asset. Other RCM experts share this sentiment after conducting a thorough PMO2000 analysis. Please refer to the attached paper for a detailed explanation of PMO2000 and the points discussed above. Also, there are various papers on our website related to PMO2000. Hope this sheds light on PMO. Steve Attachment(s): ComparingRCMandPMO2000.pdf (760 KB) Version 1.