According to a post on Reliabilityweb.com, the concept of Precision Approach focuses on achieving a high level of precision in our work to minimize failures, with wear-out failures being the only expected outcome. Maintenance data suggests that only a small percentage of industrial equipment actually reaches the wear-out stage, indicating that the majority of mechanical failures are caused by preventable human errors. This implies that non-precision maintenance practices are responsible for non-wear out failures. Could implementing precision maintenance techniques help prevent these random failures? Initially, it may seem like there is little that can be done to avoid such incidents, but a focus on precision maintenance could be the key to reducing these unforeseen failures.
Hello Josh, There are several points made in the statements that can be debated. To simplify the discussion, I will list them numerically. First, the statement mentioning "our jobs" seems to focus solely on maintenance work. However, since maintenance only accounts for around 30-35% of failures, with design and operations playing a significant role in the rest, how much of a difference will precise maintenance work make? Secondly, the claim that only about 10% of industrial equipment reaches the wear-out stage overlooks the fact that failures occur at the failure mode level, not necessarily at the equipment level. This is a unique feature of complex systems, as discussed in the Nowlan & Heap report. Moving on, while human intervention can influence equipment performance, wear-out often results from the complexity of equipment rather than human error. Lastly, the idea that precision maintenance can prevent random or non-wear out failures may not hold true for the majority of failure modes. The airline industry example highlights how despite operating and maintaining planes to high standards, a significant portion of failures are non-age-related. Precision work is beneficial for critical items and can boost pride, but it may not drastically reduce non-age-related failures, as seen in the N&H report. Nonetheless, it can enhance Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) significantly. V.Narayan.
In Reliability Magazine Volume 10 Issue 6, the discussion surrounds the topic "Why Planned Maintenance is No Longer Sufficient?" The implementation of the Action Team process at Lima focused on defect elimination to shift towards the Precision Domain instead of solely relying on planned maintenance practices. Surprisingly, it was discovered that skipping the Planned Domain and focusing on defect elimination in the Precision Domain was more effective and efficient. Unlike planned maintenance, which only improves efficiency without reducing workload, the Precision Domain aims to eliminate root causes of losses such as defects leading to production loss, waste, and safety incidents. By adopting a proactive approach to addressing defects, the amount of work required is significantly decreased. This concept aligns with Behavior Based Safety methods, as depicted in Figure 9 using a safety triangle adaptation. The article also hints at the benefits of precision maintenance and poses the question of what strategies were successfully implemented to transition from reactive to the precision domain.
Josh, how can anyone possibly argue against the idea that reducing work by addressing the root causes of losses, such as defects leading to production loss, waste, and safety incidents, is crucial? Isn't it as American as apple pie? It is imperative to focus on eliminating these root causes and promoting behavioral changes. The key point is not just meeting high standards of quality, but eradicating failure causes. While reducing non-age-related failures by addressing root causes is a commendable goal, it does not address issues stemming from complexity rather than work quality. Poor work quality can lead to inefficiencies and early failures. V.Narayan.
Dear Josh, I am finding it difficult to grasp the main points of this discussion. Based on maintenance statistics, it is suggested that only around 10% of our industrial equipment reaches the wear-out stage, with the remaining 90% of mechanical failures being attributed to "personnel avoidable events." This implies that human error or interventions are responsible for the majority of failures. While I believe human error plays a significant role in asset failure, I am cautious about accepting the 90% failure rate. Precision maintenance aims to do the job correctly, which I fully support. However, I have reservations about the statistics presented. I plan to share a diagram illustrating the progression of asset management from reactive to collaborative stages in the next few days. This may be of interest to you.
I empathize with the sentiments expressed here, as I have encountered similar challenges during my time at DuPont when we tackled these issues. As an engineer, my instinct is to analyze the data to determine the best course of action for addressing equipment reliability issues. However, it became apparent that reliability is not solely dependent on equipment, but also on the people operating it. Despite studies showing that 90% of failures are not solely due to human error, it is evident that people can play a significant role in resolving issues that they may not have caused. My belief in the possibility of a 90% reduction in failures was solidified during a TPM conference I attended in Japan in 1991. Award-winning companies shared their experiences with TPM implementation, reporting an elimination of 90 to 98% of breakdowns upon reaching a high level of TPM performance. This success was not about reducing workload, but about enhancing precision across various aspects such as operations, purchasing, design, and maintenance. The key takeaway from observing TPM in Japan was the importance of cross-functional cooperation and a focus on achieving reliable production. It became evident that a substantial part of reliability issues stemmed from organizational shortcomings rather than equipment deficiencies. While my inclination as an engineer is to focus on technical solutions, the evolution of equipment reliability has outpaced our ability to effectively manage and run it. The concept of the Precision Domain, as highlighted by Winston P. Ledet, emphasizes the importance of precision in all aspects of operations to minimize failures. The idea is that with a mastery level of precision in maintenance and operations, the majority of failures can be avoided, with only wear-out failures remaining as outliers. This underscores the necessity for a holistic approach involving the entire organization to achieve high reliability levels. In conclusion, the path to high reliability requires a collective effort from all members of the organization, transcending the traditional roles of maintenance personnel and reliability engineers. By embracing the Precision Approach and fostering a culture of precision and cooperation, it is possible to significantly reduce failures and enhance overall equipment reliability.
Absolutely, precision maintenance techniques are crucial in reducing unpredictable failures. As you mentioned, the bulk of equipment failures are human errors rather than wear and tear. This means we have more control over the maintenance process than we might think. By focusing on precision and detail in maintenance, we can prevent the small mistakes that often lead to bigger problems. Not only can this technique save on repair costs, but it can also prolong the lifecycle of the equipment and improve overall operational efficiency.
Absolutely, implementing precision maintenance techniques could be a game-changer. Maintenance shouldn't just be about 'fixing' things when they break, but also about perfecting the daily operations to reduce instances of breakdown. By operating with careful precision, we proactively address minor issues before they grow into major, costly problems. Each part of the machinery has its role and when properly maintained, the odds of random failures decrease. A shift towards precision maintenance would surely result in a healthier, more efficient industrial landscape.
✅ Work Order Management
✅ Asset Tracking
✅ Preventive Maintenance
✅ Inspection Report
We have received your information. We will share Schedule Demo details on your Mail Id.
Answer: - Precision Approach in maintenance focuses on achieving a high level of precision in work to minimize failures, with wear-out failures being the only expected outcome.
Answer: - Maintenance data suggests that a small percentage of industrial equipment reaches the wear-out stage, indicating that preventable human errors are responsible for the majority of mechanical failures.
Answer: - Implementing precision maintenance techniques can help reduce unforeseen failures caused by non-precision maintenance practices, ultimately improving equipment reliability and performance.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.