Mike, I would like to expand on your insightful post: When done correctly, Reliability-centered Maintenance (RCM) not only dictates which maintenance tasks to perform, but also determines when they should be carried out. This 'when' aspect is a key outcome of the process. Despite common misconceptions, addressing the questions of 'what' and 'when' helps to tackle the physical deterioration mechanisms of assets. This involves pinpointing the root cause of failures and being able to forecast when they might occur. Utilizing Predictive Maintenance (PdM) techniques for failures that follow the exponential distribution, or conducting statistical analysis to identify failure patterns and predict remaining service life, may be necessary for accurate predictions. The focus should be on achieving the most effective maintenance strategies, rather than simply following optimization curves generated by RCM software. Ultimately, RCM is about minimizing risks rather than just cutting costs. In practice, reducing risks often leads to cost savings, although not always.
Quote: Empowering Maintenance Through Autonomous Maintenance
I appreciate the suggestions provided by all. I echo the sentiments shared by my colleagues regarding the challenges posed by the blaming game between maintenance and operations. It is disheartening that department managers fail to grasp the significance of reliability beyond assuming it is solely the responsibility of the reliability group. Fortunately, our plant manager is supportive and possesses a better understanding of the subject. We are preparing a presentation for him to champion the cause.
Working in a pulpmill, I have observed a wealth of talent within our operations and maintenance teams. However, they have yet to witness the concrete benefits of implementing repeatable processes and procedures. Drawing from my experience in nuclear power for over a decade, I am committed to showcasing the value of such practices. Additionally, I am eager to identify industries and companies of similar size (~300 employees) to use as benchmarks, illustrating the potential impact this transformation can have.
I understand the challenges you are facing. Even with management support, driving change can be a difficult journey. The challenge lies in convincing workers to embrace additional responsibilities, which can be a tough transition. In many cases, employees may prefer a traditional work mindset, just coming in, doing their job, and collecting their paycheck. While Asian culture emphasizes work, Western culture values work-life balance. Exceptions exist in industries like NASA, the Armed Services, and the Nuclear Industry. Success often lies in nurturing individuals who are naturally passionate about their work. It's important to remain realistic about the challenges ahead while also striving for success. Wishing you the best of luck. - Mike.
- 15-10-2024
- Rebecca Murphy
Hey Ctiger, I'm curious, how many individuals are part of your Reliability Group? Does your manager happen to be a Reliability Engineer, or do you answer to someone outside of the Reliability field? I've come to realize that having a well-organized Reliability Group is crucial for making significant advancements. It can still be challenging even with a structured group, but once you gain traction as a team, you can make a noticeable impact on a broader scale. We've been making progress within our Corporate Group as well. However, there seems to be an abundance of industry jargon circulating without a true understanding of the effort required to achieve the goals of the day.
Our team answers to a Reliability Engineer who reports to the maintenance manager. I have spoken with our supervisor and he is convinced that he and I are the only ones who truly grasp that reliability entails the collaboration of all departments to ensure the right individual performs the right task at the right time. The current organizational culture poses a challenge, as the supervisory team was significantly downsized with the assistance of consultants a few years back, leading the management team to constantly watch their backs. The workforce, consisting of aging operators and craftsmen, has been praised for their performance, resulting in little motivation for change. The reliability department has been tasked with a focus on "RCM and RCAs," but I am concerned that our efforts may not yield significant returns. (I am now seeing things for what they truly are).
I am currently attending an FMEA training session all week, but I am interested in discussing this further. Our team has recently undergone a similar journey to yours, where we reduced production by 50%. Cost efficiency is a top priority for us, and we are now leading the charge in achieving savings for maintenance and spare parts. I have developed a spreadsheet that calculates the savings in man-hours, labor, and parts by extending preventive maintenance (PM) frequencies compared to the original schedule. We are transitioning to meter-based PMs to align with actual equipment usage. I have also created a spreadsheet to analyze the risk/cost benefits of converting PM spares that have only been used for PM work orders in the past four years. Previously, we stocked excessive quantities of PM spares, even though our system, Maximo, can automatically order based on PM demand. By extending the planning horizon to six months and allowing lead times to determine order dates, we have optimized our inventory management process. Implementing changes may take time, but it should be data-driven. Our department has benefited from new SOPs that streamline job planning and spare parts review, thanks to my supervisor's guidance. Avoid suggesting FMEA exercises for now, as the existing systems may not align with your goals. Consider focusing on Maintenance Needs Assessment instead for better results.
Wally has developed a unique self-calculating tool that analyzes man-hour savings, labor savings, and parts savings by extending preventive maintenance (PM) frequencies compared to the original schedule. Do you understand how this tool functions? It deals with fixed time change outs of inspections. It is crucial to approach extending intervals correctly to avoid increased costs. Mathematically, the most cost-effective inspection interval is the PM interval, but adjustments may be necessary to allow for proper corrective planning. Following any other methodology will likely lead to higher costs. For more information, visit www.pmoptimisation.com.au.
- 15-10-2024
- Heather Coleman
Due to a 50-60% decrease in production, we made adjustments to our preventive maintenance (PM) schedules, doubling the frequency for most equipment in our plant. While utilities still need to operate 24/7, their demand has decreased, presenting new opportunities for efficiency.
- 15-10-2024
- Jessica Freeman
Thank you for clarifying that. It's interesting to note that the frequency changes in response to the throughput, as it is the driving factor. This now makes perfect sense. Best regards, Steve.
Wally, our production requirements are on the opposite end of the spectrum compared to your site. We have ample margins and are focused on maximizing uptime. The plant manager is eager to invest resources in addressing the uptime issue, but I have concerns about moving too quickly. Instead of a gradual rollout based on successes, he is considering reassigning craft to the reliability group to focus solely on reliability tasks. This approach may not involve enough input from operations and could lead to potential disasters. I was intrigued by Moubray's suggestion of conducting RCMs at the necessary level of detail, as opposed to defaulting to all levels for each failure mode. According to him, RCM should ideally be completed within 4-6 months for a site. Have you ever witnessed an RCM being done within this timeframe? With our current approach and limited buy-in, it seems like it could take over a decade to complete all the RCMs (apologies if this offends anyone, but I am not willing to spend the next 10+ years solely on RCMs).
Our Reliability Group has been established for over six years, with a deep understanding of the challenges faced by companies like yours. Initially, our product yielded substantial profits and everything seemed to be going well. However, recent changes in circumstances have prompted us to reevaluate our approach. While the concept of Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) is essential for a Reliability Engineer's analytical toolkit, we have found it challenging to fully implement in our day-to-day operations. It appears that Process FMEAs may have a higher success rate, particularly within equipment design teams focusing on specific development projects. When it comes to large-scale operations with established root cause analysis and maintenance programs in place, a more comprehensive maintenance strategy may be more effective. Our belief is that a maintenance program should be analyzed on a broader scale, comparing equipment and systems for more efficient decision-making. As we delve into FMEA training, our Maintenance Manager has advocated for a shift towards Maintenance Needs Assessment over traditional FMEA procedures. It's time to make the transition.
Has anyone successfully implemented RCM for a site within a 4-6 month timeframe? It is achievable by optimizing your current program, identifying gaps, and enhancing it. This approach allows you to start at the 80-meter mark instead of from scratch, maximizing efficiency. PMO2000 is a recommended process that delivers the same maintenance program as RCM but at a much faster rate and with reduced resource requirements. Our team has completed projects for Shell platforms, chemical plants, and aluminum refineries in record time using this method. If you wish to explore this further, feel free to reach out to me at steve@omcsinternational.com. While RCM was initially developed for the aviation industry, it has been widely adopted by various sectors. However, for analyzing maintenance requirements during production, RCM may not be the most suitable tool. Let's discuss how we can find the right solution for your needs. Regards, Steve from www.pmoptimisation.com.au
There are numerous methods to achieve this goal. We recently showcased our ability to extract data from the Maximo database equipment hierarchy structure, PMs, Job Plans, CM and PM Work order history, and a Maintenance Needs Assessment Template using an Excel spreadsheet. I am happy to share more details later on. Ctiger, do you have a database query tool for Maximo to access the necessary data? The brio query tool has been essential for our RCM programs. Steve, I mean no disrespect, but I am sharing insights from an internal Maintenance RCM perspective on utilizing our existing tools to kickstart the program.
- 15-10-2024
- Vanessa Carter
Wally, we currently utilize Passport as our Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) and utilize Impromptu for querying the database. While Impromptu is effective, it can be unsettling for some due to revealing high unplanned maintenance costs. Steve, I recently discussed with my superior that our approach is more focused on Preventive Maintenance (PM) optimization within the framework of Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM), which garnered a puzzled reaction. We lack comprehensive metrics for our maintenance processes, causing resistance to change among some individuals. Introducing a "trust but verify" mindset has caused some disruption. There are talks of upcoming management changes, adding to the atmosphere of anticipation among the team.
Quote: Our current approach to RCM may take over a decade to fully implement. While some may not want to commit to spending the next 10+ years on RCMs, it is important to recognize that RCM is a long-term strategy, not a quick solution. It is possible that we may be approaching it the wrong way, but we need to shift our mindset from viewing it as a short-term goal. Even if the entire plant is "RCM'd" within 5 years, ongoing reviews are essential, especially with new equipment being introduced regularly. Rushing to complete tasks and moving on to the next project is common, but RCM is a continuous process that needs to be embraced and maintained. Various factors such as new management, changes in reliability personnel, factory closures, or unforeseen events could disrupt the continuity of our RCM program. It is important to avoid being short-sighted and seeking instant solutions, as our culture tends to favor quick fixes and immediate results. Let's not be caught up in the impatience of today's generation but instead focus on embedding and committing to RCM for the long run. Mike.
Although I am not well-versed in the software, the focus remains on the various systems at hand. This is valuable work for the RCM group. Recently, I crafted a query to total the costs of PM labor, PM parts, CM labor, CM parts, and other work types utilized in our CMMS by subsystem. This allowed me to analyze the expenses of systems and subsystems within our plant, identifying the most costly ones. I exported the data to Excel, applied Data Filters to the worksheet, and filtered for the "Top 10" in each column category, adding comments for rankings 1-10. By observing patterns in the data, I found that the priciest systems consistently ranked high across multiple categories. With the convenience of a shared central database, I was able to conduct this analysis across all seven production sites with minimal effort. Implementing specific rules, such as prioritizing PM costs due to their significant impact, allowed for the designation of Priority levels for different cost ranges. This preliminary assessment sets the stage for a more comprehensive Maintenance Needs Assessment. Moving forward, the CMMS and database query tool will continue to serve as essential resources for future studies and metric evaluations.
Hello Ctiger, instead of implementing RCM across your entire site, it may be beneficial to conduct a site criticality analysis first. This analysis will help you identify which equipment is crucial to your operations, whether it be for production, safety, environmental, or cost-related reasons. By focusing your efforts on the critical equipment identified, you can then decide if a full RCM approach is necessary. You do not have to start from scratch as suggested by Steve; you can build upon your current strategy. Through this process, you will develop a comprehensive FMECA, determine failure consequences and rates, and optimize your maintenance regime. For less critical items, you may opt for a "maintenance task template" approach using Excel or RCM Optimization software. These templates can be used to review and update maintenance strategies as needed. The updated strategy can then be applied to equipment within your CMMS. RCM is a valuable tool successfully utilized in the industry. If you are interested, feel free to reach out to me offline to discuss the criticality approach in more detail at gtyne@globalreliability.com. Cheers - Gary from www.globalreliability.com.
Perform a criticality assessment as necessary, but it's important not to dedicate more than four hours to the task. I am aware of a business that dedicated four months to this process - during that timeframe, we could have completed the analysis of 60% of the assets! This highlights the importance of efficiency and time management in assessing the criticality of assets.
Assigning criticality levels is crucial for various purposes, including analysis prioritization by the RCM group and being input into the CMMS system for work order assignment by planning and administration teams. The assessment's impact on daily operations should not be underestimated, as it provides valuable insights. In addition to the criticality assignment, I recommend conducting cost rankings based on PM Labor, PM Parts, CM Labor, and CM Parts, along with GM work type for system redesigns in our CMMS. Upon completing the analysis, I was surprised to find that many of our costliest sub-systems ranked highly in multiple categories, with some even making it to the top ten in all six. This system provides a clear focus for improvement efforts.
During my motorcycle ride home, I had some thoughts regarding the utilization of existing data within a CMMS system. It is unnecessary to recreate data that already exists. If criticality numbers are already assigned in the CMMS, it is advisable to make use of them. A skilled query writer can easily extract this data and present it in a well-formatted spreadsheet for the entire plant within an hour or two. Even if the data is only partially entered, it will still be included in the report.
I am starting to connect various ideas that I have been developing. The internal RCM technician plays a crucial role as the link between equipment, CMMS data, Operations, Maintenance, Quality, vendors, manufacturers, and other stakeholders in need of valuable information about plant equipment. We have a unique ability to correlate CMMS data with tangible assets. The planners and some plant engineers also have an understanding of this concept, but they often rely on us due to our specialized knowledge.
It is essential for the internal RCM technician to invest time and effort in comprehensively understanding the data. As I have previously mentioned, data is one of the most valuable tools at our disposal. It is important to create various reports, comparisons, cost analysis, failure analysis, and other metrics to draw attention and drive solutions forward. Starting with reports for managers can be particularly effective, as they are directly impacted by budget constraints and equipment performance.
RCM consultants, while valuable, primarily sell a concept and may not always establish a long-term connection with the equipment. They may lack the in-depth knowledge that subject matter experts possess. Facilitators, however, play a crucial role in this process and should be respected for their expertise.
In my opinion, a criticality assessment is crucial and serves multiple purposes. It not only helps in prioritizing analysis by the RCM group, but its main function lies in being input into the CMMS for use by planning and work order admin teams to determine work order priority. There are various other benefits to it that I won't delve into. Steve, how can you confidently claim a time frame of four hours without fully understanding the scope of the analysis? It plays a significant role in daily operations and should not be overlooked. Wally, I completely agree with you that there are numerous important reasons to conduct a criticality assessment. The sequence in which RCM studies are conducted should not be a determining factor. If it takes someone more than four hours to decide which systems to prioritize for RCM, then it's taking too long in my view. RCM/PMO programs should not be delayed for months just for a criticality analysis - it's simply a waste of time. Additionally, it's not advisable to perform RCM on all assets based on their criticality alone. Productivity should be a key factor in deciding which assets to analyze, especially those that have a high labor cost if maintenance is not done correctly. By focusing on productivity items, you can save a significant amount of labor hours. I prefer to prioritize the analysis based on both capacity and productivity, starting with low criticality/high productivity assessments early in the program. Best Regards, Steve
When managing a plant with 15 production areas and 8000 assets, it is essential to prioritize equipment maintenance and improvement processes such as Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), Root Cause Analysis (RCA), or Project Management Office (PMO). While each production area has its own maintenance and operations supervisors who understand the critical aspects of their section, it is crucial to consider the big picture. Efficiently prioritizing equipment for improvement requires data-driven decision-making to ensure optimal outcomes for the entire plant. Conducting a criticality analysis within a short timeframe can be challenging, but by strategically analyzing 60% of plant assets over four months, valuable time and effort can be maximized. It is important to step back and reassess the approach to asset management, focusing on developing long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes. Visit www.globalreliability.com for more information. Cheers, Gary.
The diversity of opinions is what gives the forum its vibrancy. Thank you, Gary, for sharing your unique perspective, which differs from mine. This diversity is what keeps the forum dynamic and engaging.
- 15-10-2024
- Jasmine Howard
Ctiger and others, Ct, you mentioned: The organizational culture poses a challenge, as the supervisory staff was significantly reduced with the assistance of consultants a few years ago. This has led to a sense of constant vigilance within the management team. The workforce, comprised of aging operators and craft workers, has been praised for their performance, resulting in a lack of motivation for change. However, with management backing you, there is a prime opportunity to kickstart your reliability program. By targeting not just top-level management but also intermediate levels, you can effectively sell the benefits such as financial gains, reduced production downtime, and enhanced safety measures. Engage the aging workforce by demonstrating how their efforts yield tangible results and provide feedback to keep them motivated. Instead of relying solely on enthusiastic sales pitches for programs like RCM and RCA, focus on grassroots efforts to garner support from the ground up. By involving the craft workers from the outset and providing adequate training and support, you can ensure the success of the program. Start with RCA work to deliver quick results and valuable problem-solving skills to the workforce before delving into more complex methodologies like RCM. Prioritize your efforts using the 80:20 rule and focus on failure modes that are within your control. By taking a practical approach and emphasizing measurable outcomes, you can effectively showcase the fruits of your labor on the bottom line.
After diving into Moubray's book and engaging in the stimulating discussions here, I have a new perspective to share. I firmly believe that the responsibility of Reliability groups should not lie solely on owning the RCMs. While we can certainly offer guidance and act as custodians, it is crucial for Operations to take ownership in order to truly maximize gains. A successful maintenance program, whether it be RCM or another, must be dynamic and constantly evolving. Although it should steer the direction of maintenance activities, the tangible results will only be seen when Operations takes the lead. Striving for an 80% PM/PdM to 20% Corrective work ratio is often mentioned as the optimal balance for maintenance craft. Have any of you witnessed this balance in action within a production facility? It's important to clarify that this ratio is based on actual wrench time, not simply the number of work orders. One of the key factors in enhancing production is fostering a culture of ownership at the lowest level possible. This may vary depending on the type of equipment and even among different operators as turnover happens. In my previous experience in the service industry, this culture of ownership was ingrained through a structured cycle of learning, becoming proficient, and teaching. However, instilling a similar mindset in a production environment can be challenging if there is resistance to change. These are just some thoughts to ponder as we strive for continuous improvement.
I have been delving into the concept of the PM/CM ratio and its relevance to our data analysis. The conventional PM/CM ratio is typically calculated based on the number of work orders. However, relying solely on count as a basis seems overly simplistic. What if the 20% of corrective maintenance (CM) tasks carry the highest cost implications? In such cases, a one-dimensional approach is inadequate. So far, my analysis has focused on labor and parts costs in work orders. It would be insightful to also consider the work order count for each sub-system and compare the data in terms of cost and count ratios. Achieving the perfect ratio balance remains elusive, but my data indicates that certain sub-systems receive substantial preventive maintenance (PM) investments while also incurring significant CM costs. There is a historical trend of CM tasks with underlying PM root causes, highlighting the need for improved categorization methods in our work order system. Despite my reservations, I acknowledge the importance of robust CMMS practices in gaining a comprehensive understanding of our unique operational challenges. Adapting the ratio to suit our system dynamics will require extensive time and effort, given the lagging nature of CM indicators. I am eager to deepen my knowledge on this topic and assess its practical implications for our operations. Our vibration program, initially implemented by the RCM group, is now overseen by the mechanical team, with minimal input from our in-house RCM experts. As key stakeholders, their dedication to running the program effectively is evident and underscores the significance of stakeholder engagement in program success.
When it comes to the PM-CM ratio, it is essential to consider your maintenance strategy. Systems with a failure not acceptable status require 100% PM and 0% CM, while systems of midrange criticality fall somewhere in between. The concept of an 80% PM and 20% CM rule may not apply universally. Can anyone provide further insight on this topic? Understanding the optimal ratio is crucial for effective maintenance planning and system reliability.
When I searched for "reliability pm/cm ratio" on Google, I came across an informative link that discussed the importance of combining PM and CM as indicators of reliability. According to the link, using a ratio alone may not provide meaningful data, as it can be too abstract. It suggests that the CM+PM combination is a better approach. Additionally, I found another interesting rule regarding PM/CM ratios, known as the 6:1 rule. This rule suggests that for every six PM inspections, you should find something "wrong" about one of them, which equates to about 15%. If the ratio is higher, it indicates that inspections are being conducted too frequently. This rule aligns with the idea of working towards improving metrics in inspection tasks.