New ✨ Introducing Oxmaint Asset Hub for Machine Builders and OEMs. Explore Now
Dear Team, attached are some initial Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for our upcoming discussion and feedback. The KPIs have been divided into different sections. Please find Part 0 and Part 1 attached below for your review and comments. Thank you.
To access Part 1 with attached files on how to add multiple files, please click on the link provided. The attachment includes KPIs_Part_1_-_Reliability.ppt, with a size of 116 KB and one version available.
Process alarms 14a, b, and c have been triggered, with data originating from the CMMS and various external sources such as the DCS, board operators log, and field log. When it comes to maintenance, it is best to focus on indicators within our control, rather than relying on potentially unreliable handwritten logs from other departments. This can lead to confusion and multiple interpretations of the data. Investigating the causes of these alarms can involve operations, process engineers, maintenance engineers, reliability engineers, and safety engineers. Various factors such as human error, equipment failure, and external events like power dips can trigger these alarms, leading to a flurry of notifications.
Before establishing Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), it is essential to first outline your goals for the next 2, 3, and 5 years and gain consensus from all stakeholders. While you have the flexibility to create multiple KPIs, their effectiveness lies in their ability to drive improvements in your RAM and Cost performance. It is advisable to prioritize a select few parameters, resolve them, and then transition to new areas to maintain a focused set of KPIs. Tailoring KPIs to your specific circumstances is more valuable than relying on generic or universal metrics. Additionally, some KPIs will remain constant while others may evolve over time. It is crucial for KPIs to be clearly defined, well-understood, and effectively communicated, rather than imposed from a central authority. Emphasizing the right sequence of key issues is paramount, as it should align with the unique priorities of your organization rather than conforming to industry norms. Therefore, please understand my hesitation in providing feedback on your proposed KPIs.
Thank you for your input. The aim here is to visualize the overall scope encompassing all areas within the organization. An implementation plan will be developed based on agreed prioritization with key stakeholders. Some tasks can be carried out simultaneously by relevant personnel, such as tracking equipment running hours and expenses for reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) and root cause analysis (RCA). Continuous improvement is a gradual process, but there is also a focus on transformational change to achieve significant performance enhancements. The scope and key performance indicators (KPIs) are not limited to just reliability personnel, but encompass all disciplines. At an individual level, a focused set of KPIs will be established.
Josh, here are some recommendations for optimizing business performance and focusing on key performance indicators (KPIs): 1. Begin by conducting a thorough gap analysis to determine where your organization currently stands and where you aim to be in 2, 3, or 5 years. 2. Remember that a high number of KPIs does not necessarily equate to progress; it can lead to confusion among team members. 3. Avoid creating KPIs simply because your CMMS can generate them. 4. Prioritize 10-12 key areas for immediate improvement over the next 12-18 months. Focus on these areas diligently to drive attention and effort towards them. 5. Once you start seeing sustained improvements, consider revising or replacing existing KPIs with new ones. Maintain a manageable number of KPIs to keep track of progress effectively. 6. Ensure that your KPIs cover all phases of planning, scheduling, execution, and analysis to prevent overlooking critical stages. 7. Implement improvements in stages to give your team time to adapt to new processes gradually. 8. Eliminate any KPIs that serve only to boost individual egos, and focus on areas like safety, environment, uptime, and cost to align with organizational goals. When selecting KPIs, refer to established resources on the subject rather than inventing new metrics. It is recommended to have no more than 12 KPIs at the Maintenance Manager level, which should be reviewed every 2-3 months. Ensure that lower-level performance indicators support each KPI and are readily accessible to relevant personnel. Display all KPIs prominently for easy visibility and tracking. By following these guidelines, you can enhance operational efficiency and drive sustainable improvement within your organization.
Thank you, Vee, for sharing your generous advice which was really helpful.
Hey Josh, I have a suggestion that could really benefit your measurement program. It's important to distinguish between performance indicators and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This will add transparency to the measurement process and increase its visibility and acceptance within your organization. Performance indicators are the metrics your company uses to track progress towards goals and objectives, usually arranged hierarchically to monitor the progression from cause to effect. Each performance indicator is typically tied to a strategic theme, like cost reduction, safety management, or capital spending effectiveness. The KPI is the overarching indicator that consolidates all these performance indicators under a specific theme, providing a quick snapshot of overall performance and serving as a warning signal for management to take action if necessary. Let me know if you want to delve deeper into this topic. Cheers!
An example of a common Key Performance Indicator (KPI) is Plant Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE), which combines Production Rate, Capacity Utilization, and Quality of Production. For example, Plant OEE can be calculated as (1900/2000) MTD x 110% x 0.9 = 94%. How can this KPI be cascaded down to individual equipment levels such as gas compressors, motors, pumps, and power turbines? Further details can be provided upon request. Are there specific KPIs for work management? Examples include Jobs Planned & Scheduled, Jobs Completed, Backlog Jobs, and Rework. For maintenance and shutdown cost effectiveness, % of CPRV (sum of all discipline expenditures) is commonly used. Is this acceptable? Regarding safety management, Lost Time Incidents (LTIs) are often used as a performance indicator. Capital effectiveness is typically measured by Return on Capital Employed (ROCE). Has your organization discussed the hierarchy and cascading of KPIs and PIs in detail during MSC meetings?
The literature I recommend is "Developing Performance Indicators for Managing Maintenance" by Terry Wiremen, which provides insight into key performance indicators (KPIs) in maintenance management. In addition to outlining formulas, the book also discusses the strengths and weaknesses of various performance indicators. By implementing these indicators, one can determine which ones have the potential to be upgraded to KPIs for more effective maintenance management. This book, published by Industrial Press Inc in 1998 with ISBN 0-8311-3080-6, is a valuable resource for those looking to optimize maintenance operations.
I read that book a couple of years back. How can a performance indicator (PI) be transformed into a key performance indicator (KPI)?
Which performance indicators have you incorporated? Have you delved into the introductory chapter on the genesis of key performance indicators (KPIs)?
I have previously discussed the protocols that some principal investigators have put into practice. Unfortunately, I don't have the book on hand at the moment.
Dear Josh, Thank you for your questions. I will do my best to address them here without solely promoting the book. One common area of confusion is the difference between PIs and KPIs. In the MSC, we define KPIs as the key performance indicators that truly represent the performance of a company, workforce, or assets within a strategic theme. It's important to note that any metric can be used as a KPI, as long as it accurately reflects the performance of a strategic theme. The MSC is a method for creating and implementing strategies in asset-centric industries through the use of measurement systems. It delves into cascading measurements and indicators, starting from the corporate level and aligning indicators with the organization's goals and objectives. I developed the MSC around 2000 after realizing that existing measurement systems were either too shallow or unsuitable for modern asset management needs. Asset management is crucial for large businesses, especially in industries like paper, mining, electricity, oil & gas, and water. The MSC has been implemented for various purposes such as performance improvement, strategic planning, CMMS system requirements, performance management systems for outsourced contracts, and data requirements for asset information portfolios. The book includes a variety of indicators, including the first published RCM scorecard. It emphasizes using indicators for specific purposes rather than creating long lists that lack coherence. The book also covers OEE and provides guidance on formulas, uses, limitations, and how to produce indicators using CMMS functionality. Specifically regarding work planning, the book debunks the myth of proactive versus reactive work measurement and emphasizes proactivity as a mindset rather than a measurable item. It also discusses using functional measurement for safety and risk management, as well as backlog indicators like work order age, planned/scheduled ratios, work type ratios, and compliance. I hope this information helps you, Josh. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions. Kind regards,
Josh, it's important to go back to basics and define what matters most to you. Consider your goals for the next 3-5 years and pinpoint the key performance indicators (KPIs) that will help you monitor your progress. These KPIs may require 2-5 supporting metrics at a more detailed level. For example, Plant Availability could be a KPI, with supporting performance indicators (PIs) like MTBF and MTTR. Similarly, Maintenance Cost could be a KPI, with supporting PIs such as MTBF, Non-Productive Time, and Non-Compliance Percentage. While textbooks can provide guidance, it's essential to apply the concepts to your specific situation and context. Keep in mind that what works for one person may not necessarily work for another. V.Narayan.
Check out the cost Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) included in the attached document titled "KPIs_Part_2_-_Cost.ppt". This 48 KB file provides valuable insights into monitoring and measuring cost-related metrics.
In a blog post on rootcauselive.com, V discusses the common issue of alarm overload in Control Rooms. This problem has been well-documented, with a survey by the HSE in the UK revealing that control room operators receive an alarm approximately every two minutes during steady operations. Many of these alarms are repetitive and of little value, leading operators to feel overwhelmed and pressured to accept alerts without fully understanding them. After analyzing the data, the survey found that there were far more alarms than necessary for safe operations, with some platforms having 40% more alarms than needed. The key to addressing this issue lies in implementing a risk-based analysis approach, as outlined in the International Standard IEC 61508. By removing unnecessary alarms and focusing on critical alerts, companies can improve safety and efficiency in their control rooms. It is essential for instrument designers to reconsider their approach to alarm systems, moving away from the mentality of adding more alarms for perceived safety. By streamlining the alarm system and prioritizing meaningful alerts, control room operators can better respond to incidents and prevent potential disasters.
Check out the attached report on the alarms in the control room at Texas City BP, where operators were found to be ignoring critical alarms and not taking readings seriously. This interim report sheds light on the consequences of human behavior when too focused on computers without fully grasping the situation. Download the BP Explosion Report to gain insight into this issue. The report can be found on BP's website and provides valuable information on the Texas City BP explosion.
This interim report is essential reading for all individuals. Highlighted sections pertain to performance indicators and process alarms outlined in sections 7.2.1 and 7.3.5. Section 7.2.1 emphasizes the importance of establishing clear measurements for leading and lagging indicators of catastrophic incidents, such as process upsets, fires, and high potential incidents. Section 7.3.5 discusses the need for a third-party study to assess existing alarm systems, reinforce alarm usage with facility personnel, and ensure all workers are informed about alarm systems and evacuation routes. Additionally, there is a query regarding the inclusion of safety-critical equipment in the asset register and their individual criticalities in section 7.4.2. It suggests creating a comprehensive register for safety-critical equipment with links to maintenance and testing protocols, along with specifying the level of authority required to approve changes to these practices.
Firstly, I want to thank Svanels and Josh for sharing the link to the Texas BP interim report. This study is not only informative but also thought-provoking. After reviewing the report, I have two key observations to make. Firstly, there is no mention of 'alarm overload' in this report, unlike the topic of discussion in Josh's post. In fact, the report actually emphasizes the need for more alarms to be implemented. Secondly, the report brings attention to the absence of a designated person in charge, like a day supervisor, leading to a breakdown in the 'people-barrier'. While the 'procedures' barrier had some flaws, had it been strictly followed, it could have been sufficient. However, the 'plant' barrier (stack) was found to be inadequate in both design and maintenance. I have delved into these topics extensively in chapters 8 and 9 of my book for those interested in more details. Upon further examination of the BP report, another issue came to light - the column was filled up to the 57th tray out of 70! This raises questions about the foundation's ability to handle such a liquid load. In some instances, foundations are not designed for full liquid loads due to economic reasons, which might have been the case here. Additionally, the use of nitrogen for leak testing at high pressures also raises concerns about safety protocols. Were proper evacuation measures taken during this process? What if there was corrosion along a seam weld causing a catastrophic failure? These are important considerations that should be addressed.
Upon a closer examination of the report, it seems that the section quoted above is actually referring to fire and emergency alarms, not process alarms as I initially thought. However, in section 7.4.4 of the report, it appears that they are indeed discussing process alarms related to the Instrumentation system of the Raffinate Splitter. It is recommended to re-evaluate the control and instrumentation system and make necessary enhancements, such as installing a high-high level alarm on the column base level and flow indication on the column overhead relief line to trigger automatic corrective actions. Could this be a case of insufficient process alarms in place?
It was only after the disaster that an alarm overload occurred, as Vee pointed out. Additionally, a control valve was found to be closed, causing a flow indication of 3,000 bpd instead of the usual 20,000 bpd. Despite a level indicator showing 100%, no one conducted a cross check in the field, assuming the readings were simply instrument errors. This lack of attention to detail and assumptions made it challenging for individuals to accurately assess and correlate the various process indicators. In such situations, it is imperative for personnel to stay vigilant and address any anomalies promptly to prevent potential disasters.
The Svanels Longford disaster Court of Inquiry report introduced the importance of 'mindfulness'. The Court found the Company negligent for not being mindful of the significant changes made in relocating the Technical support staff to Melbourne, a few hours away from the Plant. Your observation regarding the staff's overreliance on faulty instruments instead of their own field observations raises concerns about their level of 'mindfulness'. I have previously mentioned my caution with software solutions as I strive to be 'mindful' of the outcomes. Did BP consider the consequences of overfilling the Column, steam formation, or nitrogen pockets before the incident? Was there a nitrogen leak testing procedure in place that required the area to be emptied during testing? Why were the corroded trays in the Stack not replaced sooner? Were proper mindfulness practices followed? It is easy to criticize in hindsight, but my intention is not to do so. If the Column foundation had collapsed during overfilling or if the top half had blown off during the nitrogen test instead of an explosion, would it have been detected? During start-up and shut-down phases, plants are most susceptible, emphasizing the necessity of having experienced and responsible personnel readily available, with a management system ensuring this every time. The question of leadership during this incident remains unclear. These types of situations often lead to major incidents eventually. I support the inclusion of key performance indicators (KPIs) to highlight such issues, but it is also crucial to take actionable steps. V. Narayan.
Answer: 1. What is the purpose of the initial Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) shared in Part 0 and Part 1? - The initial KPIs are shared for upcoming discussion and feedback to measure performance and progress in different sections.
Answer: - The KPIs are divided into different sections, with Part 0 and Part 1 provided for review and comments.
Answer: - Part 0 and Part 1 of the KPIs contain specific performance indicators related to different aspects which will be discussed and reviewed.
Answer: - After reviewing the KPIs, the team members are expected to provide feedback and comments on the proposed indicators to refine and finalize them for implementation.