The nuclear industry report highlights that 38% of failures are caused by people, 36% by processes, and 28% by equipment. To improve reliability and eliminate failures to a 28% level, it is recommended to allocate at least 74% of your time towards enhancing people and processes. Remember, focusing on equipment alone is not enough to ensure success in the industry. (Please note that the statistics mentioned are based on memory and may vary slightly. An exact reference will be provided later for accuracy). Terry O stresses the importance of prioritizing people and processes in order to achieve optimal results in the nuclear industry.
If machines were able to communicate in Dutch or English, the 28% drop would be considerably reduced.
- 24-09-2024
- Jessica Freeman
Hello everyone,
I would like to get your input on which statement you believe is correct for my upcoming newsletter. I will acknowledge all contributors. So, which statement do you agree with?
1. By analyzing failures through RCFA and RCA, we can effectively eliminate them.
2. While we may not be able to completely eliminate failures, we can prevent or predict them from happening.
3. Failures are inevitable, but maintenance can work to reduce their occurrence.
4. Failures cannot be eradicated; maintenance can only prolong or delay the failure process.
Thank you for your feedback,
Rolly Angeles
Why not give an opinion poll a try? It could be quite intriguing. - Mike.
Hello everyone, I am eager to share my thoughts on equipment failures. Although I am not ready to post my answer just yet, I believe it is important to take the time to discuss whether we can completely prevent them or not. It is crucial to address the truth about equipment failures and the role human intervention plays in them. I am convinced that nearly 99% of failures can be traced back to human actions, from maintenance practices to design, commissioning, debugging, operation, decision-making, and overall equipment maintenance. People are closely linked to equipment failures, whether directly or indirectly. I encourage you to share your insights on this topic. Let's explore the connection between failures and human involvement in equipment issues. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. Thank you for your participation! Warm regards,
Rolly, I think your number 4 is spot on. When it comes to designing machinery, there are always compromises to be made. Factors like materials, manufacturing, build quality, maintenance, spare parts availability, historical data, and overall build quality all come into play. Progress is constant in this field, as it is in life. While aiming for zero failures is ideal, it's important to find a balance in the effort put into achieving this goal. Best of luck, Joe Mc Cormack.
Is achieving zero breakdowns with TPM truly possible? The answer is yes, but it requires collaboration from everyone involved. It may take some time to reach this goal. In my experience overseeing PdM at a plant for 17 years, we have successfully eliminated breakdowns, except for rare occurrences like lightning strikes. Initially, machines would only run for 1-3 years, but now they are lasting 7-9 years with planned maintenance, resulting in zero overtime. During my alignment seminar at Macon Technical Institute in Macon, GA, two of my clients validated this achievement, which came as a pleasant surprise.
- 24-09-2024
- Jasmine Howard
It's impossible to completely avoid all failures and breakdowns in any system. Not every failure can be anticipated, and the cost of attempting to eliminate every single breakdown would be exorbitant and not cost-effective. While it's possible to achieve a very high level of reliability in your process, perfection is unattainable.
Are you interested in minimizing risk to ALARP (As Low As Reasonably Practicable) levels to enhance business operations?
Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is crucial for maintaining a high level of reliability in equipment and processes. While it can be frustrating to have to address the same issues repeatedly, it is essential to allocate resources wisely. For instance, spending a week troubleshooting a recurring problem caused by a simple $2 light bulb may not be the most efficient use of time and resources.
I recently faced an intermittent issue that was causing minor disruptions in our operations. Despite occurring only twice a week and varying in symptoms reported by different operators, I persisted in investigating. Finally, after the problem escalated, I dedicated about 3 hours to pinpointing the root cause. This thorough examination led me to implement a new inspection and cleaning procedure in the regular maintenance plan for the machine, ensuring that the issue would not recur.
Fortunately, my supervisor values the importance of RCA, allowing me the time and resources needed to conduct these investigations. By identifying and addressing root causes, we have seen a significant reduction in downtime each week. I find great satisfaction in uncovering the underlying reasons for issues, knowing that it contributes to our overall reliability.
In conclusion, while Root Cause Analysis is a powerful tool for improving reliability, it is essential to apply it judiciously. With a blend of diligence and wisdom, RCA can be instrumental in enhancing operations and preventing future issues.
Can equipment failures truly be eradicated? Without a doubt, yes. Two years ago, the maintenance department appointed me as the team leader for a diverse group tasked with conducting RCM analysis to develop comprehensive maintenance plans for complex equipment. This involved selecting participants from various plant departments. The outcome was staggering - we managed to reduce the number of monthly failures from 37 to zero through the implementation of RCM analysis and TPM. Not only did this result in increased uptime and a 6% boost in line productivity, but it also had a positive impact on the plant's overall financial performance. - Cristian.
If you have implemented Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), you may notice that you are often managing, rather than completely eradicating, failures. Ultimately, this approach helps prevent unexpected breakdowns.
- 24-09-2024
- Quentin Foster
From my limited understanding, it seems that the primary objective of Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) is to pinpoint failures that cannot be effectively prevented and simply allow them to occur. This approach ultimately leads to cost savings, especially since certain failure modes have a component of 'infant mortality,' meaning that replacing a functioning part can potentially raise the likelihood of failure. If my interpretation is accurate, then RCM does not eradicate failures, but it does help save money in the long term while ideally reducing failures. When it comes to Total Productive Maintenance (TPM), no matter how diligently you monitor and adjust tire pressure or balance the wheels of your vehicle, hitting a nail will inevitably result in a flat tire. No level of maintenance can avert such occurrences.
quote: In accordance with the principles of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), it is important to note that while implementing RCM strategies can help in managing failures, it may not completely eliminate them. The objective of RCM is to minimize unplanned failures. For example, foreseeing the potential risk of a bird striking a plane and causing a crash does not classify it as a planned failure. Random failures cannot be fully planned for. Despite efforts to mitigate all possible failures, unexpected events may still occur. It is crucial to recognize and address the true nature of failures rather than trying to rename or redefine them.
Daryl, thank you for your input. I have been trying to clarify this point to Rolly and others without much success. Many people struggle to distinguish between planned and unplanned breakdowns, a topic even discussed in a book titled Zero Breakdowns. While the elimination of unplanned breakdowns is a given, the concept of planned breakdowns can be challenging for some. Understanding how to manage degradation and allow breakdowns when failure consequences are minimal is also a difficult concept to grasp for many. Mike-the-MW, it seems like you may not have a full grasp on how Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) operates. The main goal of RCM is to mitigate risks associated with equipment failures by evaluating failure frequency and consequences to determine the level of risk. Planned breakdowns, which pose a low risk, are allowed to occur as they have minimal impact. For higher risks, the right maintenance tasks and frequencies are identified to reduce the risk and ultimately improve reliability and reduce failures. Lowering risks leads to lower maintenance costs, increased uptime, and enhanced safety levels. While reducing costs is a natural outcome of RCM, the primary objective is risk mitigation. Unfortunately, some RCM Consultants focus solely on the cost-saving aspect without explaining the methodology behind it, leading to the misconception that RCM is solely about cost reduction.
In some instances, you may be tasked with managing failures rather than completely eradicating them. While worn parts are monitored for conditions and time, operational, security, and environmental failures (such as unknown factors, fear, and stress) are eliminated, ultimately leading to the management of the resulting consequences. - Cristian
Robbie, I don't recall making that statement. Is it fair to categorize a potential bird strike on a plane as a planned failure simply because I was aware of the possibility? I acknowledge that random failures do occur. Congratulations to Cristian for successfully executing a project and demonstrating strong leadership skills.
The difference between planned and unplanned breakdowns is often misunderstood. I firmly believe that there are no truly planned breakdowns. While I may allow something to break down if the consequences justify it, I would never consider it planned, especially if the failure is random. It would be challenging for a maintenance manager to justify a breakdown as planned when equipment fails. Sometimes, running to failure is necessary, even if it results in downtime, as the cost of preventing the failure may outweigh the long-term effects. No process is immune to breakdowns, as they are inevitable. While achieving zero breakdowns may seem ideal, it overlooks the non-operation related functions that are also important in maintenance and reliability.
Robbie once said, "I firmly believe that breakdowns are not pre-planned. I may allow something to break down if the consequences justify it, but I would never consider it planned, especially if it is a random failure. Planning involves the process of analyzing risks, thinking, and finding solutions. Maintenance planning requires us to determine which tasks to perform, when or how often to do them, and how to do them, including evaluating resources, spare parts, and logistics. Scheduling is the process of determining the optimal time to perform a task to minimize losses. Breakdowns can be intentional, such as allowing equipment to run until failure. This type of event can be meticulously planned, detailing the task, steps, spare parts, tools, materials, and logistics required. While these events cannot be scheduled due to their unpredictability, we should be prepared with everything needed to address them quickly. On the other hand, there are unplanned breakdowns which occur randomly, like a nail in a tire or a bird strike on an aircraft. Additionally, some breakdowns occur due to events that have random timing, not random causes. These can often be monitored for conditions to prevent functional failure by intervening in time. It is important to note that planning and scheduling are separate processes that should not be confused with one another."
Despite thorough preparation, failures leading to downtime can still occur unexpectedly. While planning and scheduling play a crucial role, it is important to acknowledge that not all breakdowns can be avoided. The concept of zero breakdowns may be connected to both planned and unplanned downtime, but unpredictability and a lack of warning signs make it impossible to completely prevent all failures. Accepting this reality is key to effectively managing downtime and maintaining operational efficiency.
While I agree with you, Robbie, it is crucial to ensure that failure is completely eliminated when there are high stakes involved. - Mike.
In an online discussion, user mike66 emphasized the importance of eliminating failure when critical consequences are at stake. This resonated with another user, Robbie, who agreed that eliminating failure is crucial when possible. However, both users acknowledged that in some cases, eliminating failure may not be feasible.
Quote: Vee expressed doubt about Mike-the-MW's understanding of RCM processes. RCM aims to reduce equipment failure risks by assessing failure frequency and consequences to determine risk levels. Planned breakdowns with low risk levels are permitted since they are insignificant. However, this deviates from common interpretations of RCM. The concept originated in aircraft maintenance, where components with a high 'infant mortality rate' were found to have increased failure chances when replaced preemptively. This principle applies to all components, whether it's an SSR for fire extinguishers or 'no smoking' lights, as they have equal chances of failure without time-based replacements. RCM is effective in aircraft maintenance due to high equipment conditions and pilot vigilance. In contrast, TPM is more suitable for facilities with numerous pumps and time-dependent components, as maintenance needs differ based on budget constraints and operator conduct. In situations with elevated risks, identifying the appropriate maintenance tasks and frequencies is crucial for risk mitigation. For instance, addressing a tire blowout caused by a nail strike requires timely intervention to prevent potential accidents and fatalities.
- 24-09-2024
- Wesley Jenkins
In a previous post, I discussed the issue of consequences. I believe that, if possible, consequences must be mitigated or eliminated. However, there are instances where this is not feasible. Regardless, it is crucial to address any potential failure modes. Safety, environmental, or catastrophic failures are intolerable in any industry. Organizations must be held accountable if they accept such outcomes as inevitable. While events like lightning strikes or tornadoes may seem unpredictable, they should still be factored into a preventive maintenance strategy. Such incidents are often considered acts of God, but they should not be overlooked in risk management.
The importance of maintenance lies in safeguarding technical integrity, which is crucial for preventing potential risks that could jeopardize safety, the environment, and asset value. Maintenance plays a vital role in risk management by minimizing risks to levels that are acceptable to businesses operating under specified conditions.
In the words of Josh, maintenance plays a crucial role in risk management. The key is to minimize risk to a level that is acceptable for the business. This underscores the importance of reducing risk to a level that is deemed acceptable. It is a costly endeavor to aim for zero risk, as evidenced by the efforts of actuaries who assign monetary value to human life and pain.
When it comes to small pumps under 15kW, running them until they fail may be feasible if failures occur rarely. However, if failures are frequent, it may no longer be cost-effective to run them to failure due to the high maintenance costs involved.
Dear All, I would like to address the question posed about the elimination of failures through root cause failure analysis (RCFA) and root cause analysis (RCA). The statement in question asks whether failures can be eliminated by analyzing them, but the reality is more complex. While analyzing failures through RCFA and RCA can certainly help prevent or predict failures, it cannot guarantee their complete elimination.
It is important to understand that failures vary in nature and can be classified into different patterns, such as infant mortality failures, random failures, and wear-out failures. These patterns can be studied to gain insights into failure behavior and mitigate risks. Additionally, failures can be classified as hidden or evident, depending on whether they are immediately noticeable to operators and maintenance personnel.
Furthermore, failures can be categorized based on their impact on equipment functions, with function loss failures stopping operations entirely and function loss reductions allowing equipment to continue functioning to some extent. Each equipment has its primary and secondary functions that must be considered when managing failures.
While planned breakdowns can be anticipated and prevented through activities like preventive maintenance, unplanned breakdowns occur unexpectedly and can only be addressed reactively. It is essential to differentiate between these two types of breakdowns to effectively manage equipment reliability.
In conclusion, it is important to acknowledge that failures cannot be completely eliminated by analysis alone. Each failure has unique causes that must be addressed comprehensively to prevent recurrence. Simply identifying one root cause may not be sufficient to prevent future failures, as there may be other contributing factors at play.
Ultimately, the goal of maintenance practices such as RCFA, RCA, and reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) is to reduce the likelihood of failures and improve equipment reliability. While these approaches can help identify and address potential failure causes, complete elimination of failures may not be feasible due to the complexity and variability of failure mechanisms.
Thank you for considering these insights, and I look forward to further discussions on this topic.
Quote from Mike66: Robbie, it is crucial to address and resolve potential failure modes. Failure with safety, environmental, or catastrophic implications should not be tolerated in any industry. Organizations must acknowledge and mitigate these risks to avoid being held accountable. While natural disasters like lightning strikes or tornadoes may be unavoidable and categorized as "acts of God," proactive risk management is essential. The space shuttle program, for example, involves inherent risks such as catastrophic tile failure. Acceptable risk levels must be determined, as complete risk elimination is not always feasible. Choosing to close a business due to cost-ineffective risk mitigation measures may not be necessary. Progress and innovation have been enabled by accepting and managing risks effectively. It is recommended to eliminate failure modes with critical consequences to ensure sustainable business operations.
I respectfully disagree with the statement that maintenance exists solely to safeguard technical integrity. As discussed in this thread on RTF strategies, the necessity of safeguarding technical integrity may vary depending on the circumstances. Maintenance is crucial because assets are prone to failure, a natural occurrence in the universe. For more information on this topic, visit www.secondlaw.com.
Thank you, Robbie! The space shuttle program is anything but your typical industry. The risks that astronauts face necessitate a unique set of rules, and I'm certain their life insurance policies are specifically tailored to address these challenges. - Mike.
Dear All, I would like to wrap up my discussion by addressing what I believe is most pertinent and effective. Firstly, it is essential to understand that failures cannot be completely eradicated by solely relying on Root Cause Failure Analysis (RCFA) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA). Each failure has its own unique set of causes, and addressing only one cause may not prevent future failures caused by different factors. It is crucial to acknowledge that while RCFA and RCA help identify the primary cause of failure, they may not address all potential causes that could lead to failure.
As my friend Bob Nelms from Failsafe-Network once aptly put it, trying to eliminate failures by focusing on a single cause is like trying to remove an ocean with a fork - it may address one aspect but not the entire issue. For instance, if a bearing fails due to lubrication failure, it does not guarantee that the same bearing will not fail in the future due to other reasons such as brinelling, pitting fatigue, or misalignment.
Preventing failures entirely may not be feasible, but maintenance efforts can aim to predict and prevent failures by identifying early signs of potential issues. While it is possible to prolong the lifespan of equipment and anticipate some failures, the ultimate goal is not to completely eliminate failures but to manage them effectively.
In summary, failures cannot be entirely eliminated, and maintenance practices should focus on prolonging the lifespan of equipment and controlling the timing of failures. The goal is not to achieve zero failures but to mitigate them proactively. If a system is currently experiencing no failures, it is likely due to effective maintenance practices that delay the occurrence of failures.
It is important to understand that while the goal of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) may be to eliminate unplanned breakdowns, the reality is that some level of failure is inevitable due to the nature of mechanical components wearing out over time. Therefore, the emphasis should be on prolonging the life of equipment rather than seeking to avoid failures altogether.
For more information and to acknowledge those who have participated in this discussion, please visit the following link: http://www.rsareliability.com/newsletterjune2007issue.htm
Warm Regards,