Dear sirs, it appears that reliability and maintenance professionals may sometimes exaggerate the true availability of the facilities we operate. When comparing plant availability to actual production output, there is often a significant difference that cannot be solely attributed to production or operational issues. Is there a method to accurately calculate plant availability while taking into account a reasonable coefficient (usually around the 90th percentile) to determine actual production levels? Kind regards, Ecky.
Hello Ecky, the accuracy of reporting depends heavily on management practices. The most reliable way to obtain accurate figures is to compare them with production output, whenever feasible. In manufacturing, it is essential to calculate the rate, time, and quantity produced. If the rate and time do not align with the amount produced, it is possible to determine where losses occurred. Egos and key performance indicators (KPIs) can sometimes lead individuals to distort the truth. Best regards, Steve.
Ecky, are you saying that the plant is not performing at its full capacity as indicated by the nameplate, leading you to consider de-rating the plant's capacity?
Quote: Are you saying that the plant is not meeting its nameplate capacity, leading you to reduce the plant's capacity? No, Josh. What I meant was that by de-rating the plant availability by a factor lower than one, we can account for inefficiencies caused by operational personnel. When we multiply the de-rated plant availability by the expected work rate of the plant, the resulting figure should closely match the actual production output. I started thinking along these lines when I saw a company consistently reporting plant availabilities in the high 90s. However, when compared to actual production, it was apparent that the plant was only utilizing around 60% of its total capacity. The discrepancy was too large to solely be attributed to operational inefficiencies. This led me to suspect that the mathematical model used to calculate plant availability was unrealistic and not a useful management indicator. Quote: I believe that egos and KPIs often push individuals to misrepresent the truth. I couldn't agree more, Steve. Perhaps someone has developed a more accurate model for determining plant availability and is open to receiving feedback from others. Ecky.
When assessing plant performance, it's important to differentiate between plant availability and plant capacity. How do you calculate these metrics? Also, what type of plant are you referring to? Plant availability refers to the percentage of time the plant is operational throughout the year, while plant capacity measures the production output on a daily or yearly basis.
Quote: It appears that there is a comparison being made between plant availability and plant capacity, which are actually two distinct concepts. This discussion with Josh is quite intriguing. Plant availability refers to the amount of time the plant is operational over a year, assuming it runs continuously. On the other hand, plant capacity represents the rate of production on a daily or yearly basis. For example, if my Maintenance Engineer informs me that the plant was available 97% of the time throughout the year, and my plant has the ability to produce 100 widgets annually, I should not expect to achieve the full 100 widgets output. This is because the plant was only operational 97% of the time. In the best case scenario, I could expect around 97 widgets produced without any overtime and with operations running at 100% efficiency. However, considering an operational efficiency rate of 90%, my expected production would be closer to 87 widgets. If at the end of the year, I only manage to produce 67 widgets after factoring in all other losses, I would start questioning the accuracy of either my production efficiency or plant availability data. This discrepancy between plant availability, plant capacity, and actual production on the ground has led me to question if our measurement of plant availability as Maintenance and Reliability Practitioners truly reflects reality. I appreciate the correction, Ecky.
Hello Ecky, you bring up an excellent point regarding the disparity often seen between plant availability and actual production. A more comprehensive measure may involve calculating your "Effective Equipment Performance" (EEP). This appears to be a more accurate operational index as it encompasses three core factors: Availability, Performance efficiency, and Rate of quality products. The EEP provides a more balanced picture of plant operations as it looking beyond just availability and considers the actual output and quality of the product as well. By using this metric, you could have a more informed basis for making decisions around your maintenance strategies, and it may help align your reliability and maintenance team's goals with total factory output.
Ecky, I completely agree with your point. It's crucial to have a realistic understanding of plant availability. To address this, we can consider a method that factors in both scheduled and unscheduled downtime, such as overall equipment effectiveness (OEE). OEE takes into account availability, performance, and quality to give a more holistic view of plant productivity. This approach allows us to mediate the discrepancy between declared plant availability and actual production output. It may not be a perfect solution, but it provides a transparent baseline for continuous improvement and establishes a better relationship between reliability professionals and operational teams.
✅ 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: 1. How can plant availability be accurately calculated considering the tendency of some professionals to exaggerate it? - To accurately calculate plant availability, it is essential to incorporate a reasonable coefficient, typically around the 90th percentile, to determine actual production levels. This helps in accounting for any discrepancies between reported availability and actual production output.
Answer: - Factors such as reliability of equipment, maintenance practices, downtime events, and production losses should be carefully evaluated to accurately calculate plant availability. It is important to ensure that all relevant data is taken into account to provide a realistic assessment.
Answer: - Plant managers can implement robust monitoring and reporting systems to track downtime events, maintenance activities, and production losses accurately. By regularly reviewing and analyzing this data, managers can identify areas for improvement and make informed decisions to enhance plant availability.
Join hundreds of satisfied customers who have transformed their maintenance processes.
Sign up today and start optimizing your workflow.