Hello Rolly, throughout my years of experience, I have learned that completely eliminating infant mortality is not possible. However, by implementing effective mechanics and following best practices, you can reduce the rate significantly. Despite having top-notch mechanics and world-class practices, there is always a risk of a manufacturing defect slipping through the cracks. It is important to analyze the root cause of the failure. If it was due to a manufacturing defect, reach out to your parts vendor for assistance. If it was due to workmanship, consider making necessary changes to prevent similar failures in the future. - Aubrey
In the realm of infant mortality, two key factors stand out as game-changers: the design and installation of equipment systems. The incorporation of robust reliability measures such as Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) and throughput buffers into the design can have a significant impact on reducing infant mortality rates. However, it is vital to also focus on best practices during the installation and commissioning stages to guarantee a smooth startup and ongoing operation with a skilled workforce. While the goal of eradicating infant mortality entirely may be daunting, taking proactive steps in design and installation processes can make a substantial difference. Regards...Rajan
Rolly, I fully agree with Steve on the importance of utilizing statistics in fine-tuning processes. While statistics may not address fundamental issues, it can play a crucial role in reducing infant mortality rates to a manageable level. It's unrealistic to expect zero infant mortality due to the inherent risk of human error in every step of the repair process, including the use of spare parts. Manufacturers also face challenges in producing reliable parts, often requiring remachining or replacements. Errors by maintenance personnel can impact repair outcomes, highlighting the need for high levels of competency throughout the process to minimize infant mortality incidents. Best regards, Joe Mc Cormack.
It is important to note that infant mortality in mechanical components is not solely caused by maintenance or operating errors. The process of 'bedding in', where parts align and adjust themselves by wearing out 'high spots', plays a crucial role in improving reliability over time. However, there are other contributing factors to failure, such as the quality of maintenance and operations. By minimizing unnecessary maintenance and ensuring quality in manufacturing and initial assembly, the issues related to 'bedding in' can be mitigated to some extent. Avoiding unnecessary part replacements and ensuring proper field work practices can also prevent misalignment, incorrect fitting, dirt ingress, and poor shutdown/startup procedures. Rather than focusing on excessive maintenance, the key lies in determining the right level, quality, and frequency of maintenance. While leaving a well-functioning machine alone is beneficial, regular checks to confirm its optimal performance are equally important.
Hi Steve, I apologize for the delay in responding, as I have been without internet access for the past week. Weibull analysis is a straightforward method conducted at the level of failure modes. It is crucial to identify how equipment is failing in order to determine the appropriate strategy to address the issue. How can you pinpoint which failures are contributing to infant mortality using Weibull analysis? Simply examine the results on your Weibull plot and pay attention to the beta value. If the beta value is less than 1, it indicates infant mortality; if it equals 1, it signifies random failure; and if it is greater than 1, it suggests wear out. Once you ascertain where you fall on the bathtub curve, you can decide on the best strategy to implement. Instead of manually analyzing the data through a histogram, consider using the data to generate a Weibull plot for quick feedback on the type of failure being experienced. For further insights, I recommend delving into "The New Weibull Handbook" by Dr. Robert B. Abernethy. More information can be found at http://www.barringer1.com/tnwhb.htm. Cheers, Gary.
Weibull analysis is a methodology commonly used at the failure mode level. While some may consider it simple in comparison to complex mathematical concepts like calculus of vector functions, it may not be as straightforward for those unfamiliar with it. For example, Rolly may struggle with Weibull analysis if he has not been trained in it. However, if Rolly or his client are experiencing an infant mortality problem, it may be beneficial to run a Weibull plot to determine if the high rate of failures observed is statistically significant.
Instead of solely relying on a histogram to analyze data, running a Weibull plot can provide quick feedback on the type of failure being experienced. Although a histogram can reveal more information compared to a Weibull plot, it may be more challenging for individuals outside the engineering field to interpret. In this case, diagnosing the data and implementing elimination strategies may be more effective than spending time on running a Weibull plot.
In conclusion, it is important to use the most suitable method for analyzing data based on the context and the audience. Weibull analysis may be helpful for engineers but may not always be the most practical solution. Regards, Steve.
Steve, performing a Weibull analysis does not require advanced calculus or vector algebra. All that is needed are a log-log Weibull chart, sequential run lengths, and data on premature equipment replacement during preventive maintenance or early retirement. This information should be readily available in a CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System). Alternatively, We can use Weibull software instead of special chart paper. Weibull analysis plays a crucial role in reliability assessments, so I am uncertain why you are opposed to it.
- 21-02-2025
- Shawn Thompson
When it comes to reliability analysis, Weibull software definitely has a place. However, it should not be the sole focus as some vendors suggest. Solving infant mortality problems requires more than just diving into complex Weibull analysis. To truly identify and address these issues, it's essential to involve operators and technicians who have hands-on experience. They may not understand the intricacies of a Weibull chart without proper training. Instead, gathering data on early failures and presenting it in a format that operators and technicians can easily comprehend is crucial. Once buy-in is obtained, project management can be implemented accordingly. While Weibull analysis is often touted as the solution to various problems, sometimes a simple histogram suffices. In some cases, Weibull analysis may even provide incorrect results due to its limitations in capturing all failure mechanisms. It's important to consider the significance of the data available when utilizing the Weibull distribution. Ultimately, it's a matter of preference, with some engineers finding Weibull analysis enjoyable, while others prefer the simplicity of histograms. The hype surrounding Weibull may lead to its widespread adoption, but differing opinions should be welcomed in the discussion. Thank you for allowing me to share my perspective.
I completely agree with your perspective, Steve. It is important to keep things simple and not overcomplicate when there are straightforward solutions at hand. Although a simple histogram can provide valuable insights, nothing compares to a conversation with the operator or maintainer to truly grasp the situation. Rolly, being a seasoned and knowledgeable engineer, earns my utmost respect. It seems like he was just testing the waters with his suggestion, hence the various responses in the forum. The exploration of Weibull theory should be viewed in this light. Your strong reaction took me by surprise, considering I frequently use your histograms and paretos, albeit having some experience with Weibull analysis as well. Weibull parameters are essential for any mathematical modeling, so I hold those who specialize in it in high regard. I find Wikipedia intriguing, especially given my Indian background and my name's connection to the Juggernaut story. While it was an entertaining read, I still lack some context. Would you mind elaborating on this further?
My initial plans to tackle some important tasks before the start of the workday have been derailed by the allure of this forum. Weibull parameters are crucial for mathematical modeling, and those who work with them deserve respect. However, the source of these parameters and the statistical significance of the results based on input data raise important questions. Is it appropriate for Rolly to utilize modeling tools to address infant mortality? Using the analogy of a juggernaut, Weibull analysis is likened to an unstoppable force that can overwhelm everything in its path. The widespread discussions about Weibull analysis seem to perpetuate its popularity, drawing individuals in and creating replicas of one another. While valuable in its own right, Weibull analysis should not be applied as a one-size-fits-all solution. My hope in sharing my thoughts on this forum is to challenge the notion of Weibull analysis as an all-encompassing solution. Steve
Dear Steve, Vee, and everyone, I have immense admiration for the late Wallodi Weibull and the valuable insights his statistics offer in the field of maintenance. It is evident that his work, along with the use of Basic Statistical Tools like Histograms in Statistical Process Control (SPC), can greatly aid in addressing issues. However, I want to shift the focus to a higher-level decision-making process that plays a crucial role in combating INFANT MORTALITY FAILURES. This is a topic close to my heart and a key focus in all my training sessions, where I strive to educate individuals on the concept of infant mortality and its impact on our operations. The clash between maintenance and operations often arises when maintenance seeks to perform preventive maintenance (PM) on machines that operations refuse to relinquish. This conflict leads to what I term the ADD ON PM SYNDROME, resulting in an increase in problems with more PM and a decrease in issues with less PM.
When stakeholders, whether customers, quality inspectors, or top management, visit a plant and identify issues with equipment, their immediate response is to review the PM checklist. This continual reinforcement of checklists eventually overwhelms maintenance teams, preventing them from completing all necessary tasks due to the sheer volume. It is essential for these stakeholders to understand the 6 failure patterns that govern equipment components to effectively address issues.
I have encountered instances where resistance to change, driven by external demands, hinders progress. Implementing recommendations from a thorough RCM analysis, which significantly reduced maintenance tasks for a piece of equipment, was met with apprehension due to the fear of deviating from customer expectations voiced during audits. It is crucial for individuals to recognize the existence of infant mortality failures and take proactive steps to address them, rather than blindly adhering to outdated practices enforced by uninformed authorities.
In conclusion, while tools like the Weibull analysis can pinpoint potential areas of failure, it ultimately falls on individuals to take action and drive change within their organizations. A lack of understanding and acknowledgment of infant mortality failures, especially by those in positions of authority, perpetuates recurring issues such as start-up failures and debugging challenges. It is my hope that this perspective sheds light on the underlying issues at hand and encourages a shift towards proactive problem-solving. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Warm regards,
Rolly Angeles
Rolly, it appears that your RCM results have not been put into action, possibly leading to concerns about leadership and a lack of commitment to improvement. Perhaps discussing the RCM results with customers could lead to a possible reduction in product prices. It's puzzling why a customer would have a say in the PM program. A customer audit, such as ISO9000, may focus on the availability and reliability of a PM program, rather than the specific implementation details.
In situations like this, it is advisable to escalate the issue to the management committee or board of directors if the Maintenance Manager is unable to make a decision independently. This collaborative approach ensures that decisions are made collectively, fostering teamwork and accountability.
- 21-02-2025
- Wesley Jenkins
Is it necessary to always comply with the King's orders? If obedience is strictly enforced, it can stifle any potential for change and progress towards a more democratic society. This hints at a deeper issue of reluctance to challenge established norms. The organization in question may require a broader understanding beyond just infant mortality rates. While the maintenance personnel may grasp the concept, what about the CEO and other departments? If the maintenance team unilaterally implements RCM strategies and a machine malfunctions, the blame will likely fall on the Maintenance manager, who may strive to avoid such scenarios. It is evident that the organization requires more than just maintenance training to thrive.
What are the indicators of effective project management? What is the optimal percentage of manhours dedicated to project management tasks? Is 70% the ideal target?
- 21-02-2025
- Frances Fisher
You mentioned the importance of "the King", but who holds that title in this context - the Maintenance Manager or the CEO?
In a previous discussion, it was noted that the CEO may not be able to attend the training on infant mortality failures due to time constraints. Unfortunately, it seems that high-level executives often prioritize other matters over important trainings. I will touch base with you later. - Rolly Angeles
If the king is too busy for training, why not bestow upon him the title of champion to spearhead the implementation of RCM results and maintenance improvement programs?
I shared my approach with Rolly on tackling issues with infant mortality. Personally, I have found great success in using the Weibull method to address and effectively manage equipment failures. While some may have different methods that work for them, I believe in the effectiveness of Weibull. It's common for people to resist new methods that are not familiar to them, like a wheelbarrow being different from a juggernaut. A wheelbarrow is a small, hand-propelled vehicle with one wheel, while a juggernaut offers a more enjoyable ride.
Thank you, Gary, for sharing your thoughts. This is what makes forums so valuable - a diverse range of perspectives and experiences. Readers can then choose their own path. Let's add some entertainment to the mix with carefully selected quotes to ponder. In 1933, Albert Einstein emphasized the importance of simplicity in theory, stating that theories should be as simple as possible without sacrificing accuracy. On the other hand, complexity can lead to confusion and chaos. It takes a genius and courage to simplify and clarify. As E. F. Schumacher once said, "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction." While you may not be familiar with Schumacher, his wisdom resonates. And if you're looking for impactful quotes to strengthen your arguments, there are plenty of resources available online. Choose wisely and captivate your audience with compelling words.
Hey Josh,
I appreciate all the valuable insights you provide as a maintenance manager in either an industry or plant. Your dedication to constantly upgrading your knowledge, evident in your active participation on various maintenance-related forums, speaks volumes about the reliability of your equipment. In my experience, it's rare to find maintenance managers like you who prioritize staying ahead of the curve amidst daily operational challenges.
It's encouraging to hear that you're making strides in changing the maintenance culture within your organization. While it may be a tough journey, the progress you're seeing with your team's willingness to embrace change is a positive sign. Ultimately, the key lies in convincing individuals to shift their mindset towards failures and commit to a more proactive approach.
Your efforts are truly commendable, and I hope to see more maintenance professionals follow your lead. Keep up the great work!
Warm regards,
Rolly Angeles
- 21-02-2025
- Quentin Foster
I make it a habit to browse the internet for valuable information every day after work, fueled by my passion for learning. Reading is my top hobby, and I particularly enjoy exploring websites like this one. I prioritize proactive planning over reactive problem-solving to avoid unnecessary stress. I believe in sharing knowledge with others and never hesitate to ask when I'm unsure. It can be challenging to persuade people to embrace change, as I've discussed in previous posts. Nevertheless, I encourage others to contribute their thoughts and ideas to this platform.
As a maintenance manager, I would allocate time for a few team members to work offline and conduct online research on industry best practices. This knowledge can then be shared with the entire group to improve our maintenance processes. Sincerely, Rolly Angeles
- 21-02-2025
- Yvonne Mitchell
Is it possible to address and lower infant mortality rates through the utilization of Quality Improvement Measures (QM), Integrated Family-centered Care Approaches (IFCA), and Early Education Interventions (EEM)?
Upon close inspection of workshop practices, it became evident that maintenance practices play a crucial role in machinery performance. It is essential to assess bearing fitting techniques, alignment methods, coupling types, foundation/baseplate conditions, and piping systems and supports. Utilizing technologies such as lasers for alignment and implementing proper maintenance training can greatly improve equipment reliability and prevent costly breakdowns. It is important to also consider the sourcing of replacement parts, avoiding unnecessary expenses by opting for cheaper yet reliable options from suppliers like Grainger or MC Master-Carr. By prioritizing equipment reliability over cost-saving measures in the long run, businesses can ensure uninterrupted production and revenue generation. Leveraging advanced technologies like thermography and ultrasonics can further enhance maintenance practices and reduce the risk of human error. Remember, maintaining equipment is the responsibility of the business owner, not the customers. By taking proactive measures and investing in quality maintenance, businesses can avoid unnecessary downtime and costly repairs. Let's continue to engage in these valuable discussions to improve our maintenance practices and drive business success.
Hello everyone, I would like to clarify a common misconception regarding maintenance practices for equipment. It is not the customers who determine which maintenance tasks should be carried out, nor do they contribute to the increase in preventive maintenance tasks. Rather, it is the individuals within the organization who are responsible for adding to the list of tasks.
During visits from important customers at a manufacturing plant, representatives from management, process, engineering, and maintenance departments accompany them. If a customer observes a potential issue with equipment, a meeting is typically held to address the issue. In these situations, the immediate response from those present may be to add more tasks to the maintenance list, resulting in a continuous accumulation of tasks over time.
It is important for individuals involved in maintenance to consider factors such as infant mortality and random failures. Understanding these concepts may lead to a shift in perspective. From my experience, I believe that intrusive maintenance practices are often the underlying cause of infant mortality failures.
It seems that there is a deficiency in the implementation of PM change control procedures.