Category Archives: Reliability Services

This question came up during one of our most recent webinars and we thought it raised a very interesting point. Joel Smeby is an experienced reliability engineer who leads our North American engineering team and has helped implement reliability initiatives in many different organizations across a variety of industries. ???????????????????????????????????????????

Here is what Joel had to say about the role of a reliability team as it relates to calculating the cost of downtime:

Reliability is typically not directly responsible for production. But when you look at all of the different areas within an organization (purchasing, spare parts, warehouse, operations, maintenance, safety), Reliability is the one area that should stand across all of them.  The organizational structure may not necessarily be set up in that way, but in terms of being able to talk to people in maintenance, operations, or purchasing and leverage all of that information into a detailed analysis and then make decisions at that level – I think it is Reliability that needs to do that.

I recently worked on a site and went to the operations department to validate their cost of downtime and they weren’t able to give us a solid number. It changed from day to day or week to week and from an organizational perspective it’s very difficult to make decisions based on data when you haven’t defined that number.  As Reliability Engineers we need that downtime number to justify holding spare parts or performing preventive/predictive maintenance tasks.  If Operations has not defined that then I think that a Reliability Engineer is the perfect person to facilitate that discussion.  It can sometimes be a difficult conversation to have, especially if you’re gathering the information from people in upper management.  One strategy is to help people understand why you’re gathering that information and how it will be used.  Justifying maintenance and reliability decisions is all about balancing the cost of performing maintenance against the cost of downtime in order to get the lowest overall cost of ownership.  The managers who have a budget responsibility that includes both maintenance and operations will typically appreciate this approach in finding the lowest cost to the organization.

Some organizations are able to determine the cost of downtime as a $/hour.  This is done in the most basic sense by taking the annual profit that the equipment is responsible for and dividing by the number of hours the equipment runs each year (8,760 hours for continuous operation).  A deeper level of analysis may be required in more complex operations such as batch processes.

The traditional view of a maintenance strategy is that the level of effort put in to preventing a failure is dependent on the type and size of equipment.  The reliability based approach understands the cost of downtime, and therefore the equipment’s importance.  This enables the maintenance strategy to be optimized to the overall lowest cost for the organization.

Join the conversation in our reliability discussion group on LinkedIn

As its name suggests, an “asset” is a useful or valuable thing. Indeed, the antonym of “asset” is “liability”. Hence, an organization’s assets should deliver value; not cost money. With the right techniques and strategies in place, asset managers can ensure that their plant and equipment is performing at and being maintained at optimum levels. These many and varied techniques can be applied across the different phases of an asset’s life to ensure that,  instead of draining money from the bottom line, it actively contributes to margin increases. F

Managed the right way, assets can contribute significantly to profit margins. It takes a strategic approach to maintenance and asset management, in key areas such as:

  1. Increasing availability and plant capacity
  2. Reducing unnecessary maintenance costs
  3. Reducing unnecessary spares holding costs
  4. Planning optimum retirement of plant and equipment

Once you determine a key focus area, it’s important to apply the right technique.

Margin Increase Techniques

System Analysis

The primary objective of System Analysis is to identify and eliminate bottlenecks in a system, and is particularly useful in complex operations where the contribution of different parts of the system are not clear. An analyst performing System Analysis builds a representative model using reliability block diagrams, and runs a simulation to produce a quantitative view of the contribution of all parts of a system. The technique is used to assess the reliability of individual components and their dependencies on other events or assets in order to assess the overall availability of the system. This helps to determine the importance of each element, so that the analyst can play “what if” with different levels of redundancy, size of buffers, maintenance strategies, and spares holding levels, in order to find the optimum.

Maintenance Benefit Analysis

Unfortunately, there has been a long tradition of organizations fostering a culture of maintenance in which the maintenance crews are lauded as heroes when they step in to fix things that are broken. In such cultures, preventative maintenance is less appreciated, despite it being proven to save money. Maintenance Benefit Analysis – similar to Maintenance Optimization– is used to evaluate a maintenance plan and identify any areas where maintenance is either not needed or is not optimal. A Maintenance Benefit Analysis is used to identify where alternatives to current practice can be improved by choosing a different type of strategy or frequency.

Spares Optimization

Typically, maintenance crews love spares and want lots of them in their plant or facility. Yet plant managers resent having too many spares in stock as they tie up capital and take up storage space. Spares Optimization is all about finding the optimum level of spares to hold; a level that balances the cost of not having spares available against the cost of holding the spares in stock.

Repair vs Replace Analysis

Knowing when to replace a piece of equipment shouldn’t be guesswork, as the right time to replace can save hundreds of thousands of dollars in repairs. Repair vs Replace Analysis is used to predict or track the costs of repairs against the cost of replacement. As the cost of repairs increases (which incorporates costs like labor and parts), it becomes less viable to maintain the asset. Plus, as the cost of new equipment falls, it becomes more viable to buy it new. Life Cycle Cost analysis can be applied to assess the optimum point to switch from repair-mode to replace-mode.

ARMS Reliability can show you how to achieve great cost savings and margin increases across the whole organization by using these techniques and their associated software tools; and will train your team to implement and manage these changes proactively.

In most cases, there is much to gain by working through maintenance strategy optimization. To identify where your company’s maintenance strategy sits on the spectrum, you can perform a simple self-assessment that looks for the most common symptoms, which are described in detail in our guide “5 Symptoms Your Maintenance Strategy Needs Optimizing.” If the symptoms are evident, then there is a strong business case to invest in maintenance strategy optimization. The primary question in diagnosing the health of your maintenance strategy is a simple one. Does your maintenance strategy need optimizing? Ideally, your maintenance strategy is already optimized. Perhaps it was, but is in need of a tune-up. Or, as is the case in many companies, maybe you are experiencing endemic symptoms that lead to: M

  • Recurring problems with equipment.
  • Budget blow-outs from costly fixes to broken equipment.
  • Unplanned downtime that has a flow-on effect on production.
  • Using equipment that is not performing at 100 percent.
  • Risk of safety and environmental incidents.
  • Risk of catastrophic failure and major events.

To identify where your company’s maintenance strategy sits on the spectrum, you can perform a simple self-assessment that looks for the most common symptoms.

  1. Increase in unplanned maintenance – A sure sign that your maintenance strategy is not working is the simple fact that you are performing more unplanned maintenance, which is caused by an increase in the occurrence of breakdowns.
  2.  Rising maintenance costs – In companies that apply best practice maintenance strategy optimization, total maintenance costs are flat or slightly decreasing month-on-month. These optimized strategies combine preventative tasks with various inspection and root cause elimination tasks which in turn produces the lowest cost solution.
  3. Excessive variation in output – A simple definition of the reliability of any process is that it does the same thing every day. In other words, equipment should run at nameplate capacity day in and day out. When it doesn’t, this is an indication that some portion of the maintenance strategy is misaligned and not fully effective.
  4. Strategy sticks to OEM recommendation -Sticking to the maintenance schedule prescribed by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) may seem like a good starting point for new equipment. But it’s only that a starting point. There are many reasons why you should create your own optimized maintenance strategy soon after implementation.
  5. An inconsistent approach – Consistency implies lack of deviation. And this implies standardisation. When it comes to maintenance strategies, standardization is essential.

For an in depth look at these symptoms download the complete guide “5 Symptoms Your Maintenance Strategy Needs Optimizing” 

Can you quantify the financial impact of your maintenance program on your business? Do you take into account not only the direct costs of maintaining equipment, such as labour and parts, but also the costs of not maintaining equipment effectively, such as unplanned downtime, equipment failures and production losses?

The total financial impact of maintenance can be difficult to measure, yet it is a very valuable task to undertake. It is the first step in finding ways to improve profit and loss. In other words, it is the first step towards an optimised maintenance strategy.

In a 2001 study of maintenance costs for six open pit mines in Chile [1], maintenance costs were found to average 44% of mining costs. It’s a significant figure, and it highlights the direct relationship between maintenance and the financial performance of mines. More recently, a 2013 Industry Mining Intelligence and Benchmarking study [2] reported that mining equipment productivity has decreased 18% since 2007; and it fell 5% in 2013 alone. Besides payload, operating time was a key factor.  

So how do you know if you are spending too much or too little on maintenance? Certainly, Industry Benchmarks provide a guide. In manufacturing best practice, benchmarks are less than 10% of the total manufacturing costs, or less than 3% of asset replacement value [3].

While these benchmarks may be useful, a more effective way to answer the question is to look at the symptoms of over- or under-spending in maintenance. After all, benchmarks cannot take into account your unique history and circumstance.

Symptoms of under-spending on maintenance include:

  • Rising ‘hidden failure costs’ due to lost production
  • Safety or environmental risks and events
  • Equipment damage
  • Reputation damage
  • Waiting time for spares
  • Higher spares logistics cost
  • Lower labour utilisation
  • Delays to product shipments
  • Stockpile depletion or stock outs

Other symptoms are explored in more detail in our guide: 5 Symptoms Your Maintenance Strategy Needs Optimizing.

Man in front of computer screen

Figure 1

In most cases, it is these ‘hidden failure costs’ that have the most impact on your bottom line. These costs can be many times higher than the direct cost of maintenance – causing significant and unanticipated business disruption. As such, it is very important to find ways to measure the effects of not spending enough on maintaining equipment.

Various tools and software exist to help simulate the scenarios that can play out when equipment is damaged, fails or, conversely, is proactively maintained. A Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is a proven methodology for evaluating all the likely failure modes for a piece of equipment, along with the consequences of those failure modes.

Extending the FMECA to Reliability Centred Maintenance (RCM) provides guidance on the optimum choice of maintenance task. Combining RCM with a simulation engine allows rapid feedback on the worth of maintenance and the financial impact of not performing maintenance.

Armed with the information gathered in these analyses, you will gain a clear picture of the optimum costs of maintenance for particular equipment – and can use the data to test different ways to reduce costs. It may be that there are redundant maintenance plans that can be removed; or a maintenance schedule that can become more efficient and effective; or opportunity costs associated with a particular turnaround frequency and duration. Perhaps it is more beneficial to replace equipment rather than continue to maintain it.

It’s all about optimising plant performance for peak production; while minimising the risk of failure for key pieces of equipment. Get it right, and overall business costs will fall.

Want to read on? Download our guide: 5 Symptoms Your Maintenance Strategy Needs Optimizing.

 

[1] Knights, P.F. and Oyanander, P (2005, Jun) “Best-in-class maintenance benchmarks in Chilean open pit mines”, The CIM Bulletin, p 93

[2] PwC (2013, Dec) “PwC’s Mining Intelligence and Benchmarking, Service Overview”, www.pwc.com.au

[3] http://www.maintenancebenchmarking.com/best_practice_maintenance.htm

Figure 1:  This image shows Isograph’s RCMCostTM software module which is part of their Availability WorkbenchTM. Availability Workbench, Reliability Workbench, FaultTree+, Hazop+ and NAP are registered trademarks of Isograph Software. ARMS Reliability are authorized distributors, trainers and implementors.

Author: Ben Rowland

A colleague and I were discussing how his nine year old son had completed his Cub Scouts Cyclist Activity badge. We noticed how some of the bike maintenance tasks that had been identified were, shall we say, less than ‘optimal’.

Now you might say this is a bit unfair to judge a Cub Scout lesson through the eyes of a reliability professional (and you’d be right) but what was interesting is that we often see the same sorts of issues within the industry.

Click image to view larger

bike1

 

The first thing we noticed is the tasks aren’t really tasks, but a list of components; i.e. they tell you what to look at but not what to look for.

In other words, how a task is written is clearly very important.  In the example above “check the back tire” does not help us know what to look for. Is it there? Is it worn? Does it have air in it? Is it damaged? With vague work instructions like these maintainers are left to decide what to inspect for, which will inevitably lead to inconsistent maintenance.

Some of the examples above are better than others, “your helmet fits” for example, is more specific and much better than “check helmet.”

While working with clients to develop their maintenance plans, the RCM process we use ensures that each maintenance task addresses a specific failure mode, or modes. We can run a report that shows this link, which in turn allows the maintainer to understand the purpose of the inspection. The task can also be written in such a way as to focus the maintenance on identifying the potential failure.

Another issue with the tasks above is there isn’t any data or figures included in the task.  How much tire wear is acceptable? What is the minimum tread depth?  What pressure should the tire be at? Is there a minimum and maximum?

There also needs to be instruction as to how frequently to do the bicycle checks.  Every ride? Every month?  Things like checking your wheels are fitted tightly might need to be performed prior to every ride, but checking a chain for wear could be performed every few months. Not having this information can lead to items being under or over maintained, leading to possibly unsafe equipment condition or wasted effort.

“Okay then, you do it!”

Well it’s only fair after criticizing the Cub Scout’s effort that we have a go ourselves. So below is an example of how we might construct a FMEA and maintenance strategy for a bicycle, in the Availability Work Bench™ (AWB) RCM-Cost software¹:

Click image to view larger

AWB

We can see that for the failure mode ‘chain worn’ we’ve identified an inspection task to periodically check the chain for wear to address that failure mode. We’ve specified the method to use (a wear gauge, as opposed to a simple visual check or performing a measurement) and an acceptable limit (less than 75% worn).  This is a clear communication of what is required, minimizing the chances of ineffective maintenance.

“How do I choose which task to perform?”

In the example above I touched on the point that there may be a choice of maintenance tasks that could be performed, as well as whether or not to perform any maintenance at all.  The RCM process also helps us to choose an appropriate maintenance task and it is essentially a balance between the severity of the failure vs. the cost or effort to perform the maintenance. Often severity is thought of in terms of cost e.g. lost production, but it also covers the impact on safety or operational impact. The operating context of the equipment also affects the severity. The example below shows how we use the AWB software to select an optimal maintenance task interval.

Click image to view larger

Optimization Curve Image

Imagine we only ride our bike for getting around the town we live in for non-essential tasks, such as popping to the shops to buy some milk and a newspaper. In this case a punctured tire is not critical and we might decide not to carry a spare tube and tools to change it (pump, tire levers etc.) and instead to perform ‘breakdown maintenance’ i.e. walk the bike home and repair it there.  Now if we were instead on a vacation touring a remote location, far from any nearby towns, this ‘run to fail’ strategy would result in a very long walk and clearly not be suitable!

 Hidden Failures

So assuming we were carrying a spare tube, and relying on it in remote locations, what happens if there is a problem with the spare tube? “Did I remember to fix it after my last puncture?” What if there is a manufacturing defect?” Or “what if I didn’t find the thorn that caused the first puncture still stuck in the tire and got a second puncture?” These are called ‘hidden failures’ and require failure finding tasks in order to mitigate them.

 Operator Maintenance

We might also set our bicycle maintenance strategy assuming we do all the checks at home in the garage, but do we also need to consider operating checks?  For our bike this might include using our senses to listen for any abnormal noises, rattles, looseness, creaks or squeaks when riding the bike. We are also checking the operation of the gears and brakes through use, cleaning the bicycle down after use and oiling the chain afterwards to prevent corrosion. This is an example of ‘operator maintenance’.

How do we manage failures during use? If we notice something is wrong during use that we can’t fix, we would note it and arrange some planned maintenance at the bike shop before the warning becomes an actual failure that renders the bike out of action.  For operating failures that occur with little or no warning time we can address these in a number of ways; carrying spares (e.g. a spare inner tube), or tools to repair the failure out in the field (puncture repair kit).  We can also introduce re-designs (sealant in the tire to seal holes as they occur).

So there it is, writing an effective maintenance strategy can be as easy as riding a bike.

 

¹Availability Workbench™ is authored by Isograph Ltd. ARMS Reliability are authorized global distributors, re-sellers and implementers of the software application.

Author: Ben Rowland

Surely if some is good, more is better? Like many things in life, there can be too much of a good thing when it comes to detail in an RCM study and finding the right balance can be tricky. Too little detail and you may miss things, too much and you could suffer from ‘analysis paralysis!’ B

So how do we know when we’ve ‘drilled down’ far enough to be thorough but not too far?

John Moubray summarised it nicely in his RCM 2 textbook:

“Failure Modes should be defined in enough detail for it to be possible to select a suitable failure management policy” (Moubray, 2007)

So what is a suitable failure management policy? The failure management policy is the approach chosen in order to mitigate the consequences of failure to an acceptable level.

Let’s consider two pumps; one is a large, complex gas compression pump and the other is a small air conditioning pump on a fork lift.

When trying to understand what the ‘suitable failure management policy’ is, it is necessary to take into account the ‘bigger picture’ of the equipment under consideration:

Function

What is the function of the machine? What is its purpose? Understanding this will help to understand the consequences of the failure, which in turn will help define the criticality.

Criticality

How critical is it if the failure occurs? Criticality is a product of the severity of the consequences of a failure multiplied and the frequency of occurrence.

In the case of large gas compression pump, a failure could result in product not being delivered, costing $1000’s per hour of downtime. Or for the forklift a/c pump it could be returning the forklift to be swapped for another in the fleet.

Repair vs. replace policy

Another aspect to consider is what is the corrective action? Is it feasible/cost effective to stock the spares and perform a repair activity in-situ, or to simply replace with a new unit?

For a large, expensive pump it would be more expensive to replace the entire unit than to replace a worn seal. Whereas for a small a/c pump it would be more cost effective to discard it and replace with a new one.

Hidden failure

Are the failures evident in normal operation, or do they require fault finding to be performed? Can the seals be seen to check for signs of leakage?

Operating context

How accessible is the equipment? Is scaffolding required? Is the plant required to be shut down? Does the equipment need to be partially dismantled e.g. removing guards etc? Is there any redundancy in place? Is the equipment in a remote location, or a challenging environment?

These are just some things to consider when considering what a ‘suitable failure management policy’ might be for your particular piece of equipment.

Back to our pump examples;
For the large gas compression pump, it is expensive to replace, critical if it fails and is accessible for in-situ repair during scheduled shut downs. In this case the FMEA would be far more detailed, including several failure modes, each with its own inspection or planned maintenance tasks, which would combine to form the ‘Failure Management Policy’ for this pump.

Image 1 How much detail

For the small AC pump on a forklift, let’s say it’s inaccessible for inspection, not critical if it fails and would be replaced rather than repaired. Our FMEA might only include a small number of failure modes, such as ‘Seal worn’, ‘Impellor worn’ and ‘Motor burnt out’ and our corresponding ‘Failure Management Policy’ would be ‘No scheduled maintenance’ and the corrective action would be to ‘Replace AC pump’.

Image 2 How much detail

In conclusion, it can be a challenge to know how much detail to go into when performing a FMEA analysis, but the aim is to go into enough detail to determine a suitable failure management policy. Considering the ‘bigger picture’ of the equipment you are analysing will help guide you as to the level of detail required.

Screen Shot 2014-09-25 at 4.28.39 pm

Philip Sage, Principal Engineer

An “unreliable” manufacturing process costs more money to operate.

Management “always says” we need to improve.

Individually, we know that “You cannot improve what you do not measure”.

So we must conclude if we want to make our process “reliable” we must measure the process reliability.

The search for measurable data that can be utilised may seem hard.  Equally hard could be a high level understanding of when a process is reliable, and what specifically must a process exhibit to be deemed reliable?

Fortunately for many, the daily production data is often the most accurate data found in a manufacturing plant.  It is also easy to find a source for this data. After all, this one daily number represents the efforts of the entire team across a 24 hours total. With just this one number, your management represents the relative health of the manufacturing process to their peers.

But how do you convert this “number” into “reliability” and what does it show us?

For starters, we can calculate the “lost opportunity” costs due to process variation. We can also identify the causes and assign actionable tasks to reduce these losses. While care must be taken in the use of certain production numbers, generally speaking, once understood, the number your organisation tracks can be utilised to determine your process reliability.

A world class “reliable process” is one that is operated at or near its functional capacity with low variability. Day in and day out the process delivers as promised.

A manufacturing process that can routinely deliver the expected result is one that is considered “reliable”. The daily output number can be measured in output tons, widgets per hour, or really any other measurement that your organisation has adopted for production success.

The key to sustaining high levels of manufacturing process reliability is the ability to recognise when the asset is not fully healthy while it still may be producing “acceptable levels” of throughput. Next, you must learn methods to diagnose which portion of the asset or sub system is responsible for the degraded performance.

A well accepted process to analyse and visualise production reliability was first published by Paul Barringer. We will explore this process more thoroughly at the Reliability Summit on the Gold Coast where we will hear from the leading users of this method in Australia.

So, how reliable is your manufacturing process?  

We will use a plants daily production output to explore just enough of the process to tease you, but not enough to explain it fully, as that detailed explanation would take more space than this blog post allows.

Analysis

This plant is reliable only about 50% of the time. Within this time of “reliable operation”, you should expect the plant to produce between 70% and 95% of the process maximum capacity.

That is a profound statement!

Conversely stated, 50% of the time you should expect this process to result in less than 70% of the capacity.

Equally profound.

The plant exhibits a significant loss when it is operating in an “unreliable” fashion. In fact, almost 30% of the capacity of the plant is lost each year.

ANALYSIS Specifics

This (Red Arrow) straight line represents how your manufacturing process has performed over time.

The (Blue) dashed line estimates on the vertical axis the “Reliability” you should expect from your process over time.

The (Yellow) dashed lines indicate the “range of throughput capacity variance” one should expect when operating reliably (~35% of capacity variance is expected).

Screen Shot 2014-09-18 at 10.36.53 am

Figure 2 – Exploded View Plant A Manufacturing Process Reliability

The area shaded in (Pink) accounts for 3.6% of the capacity loss. This occurs when the process is not operating reliably due to special causes that can include significant breakdown events.

The area shaded (Blue) accounts for 26% of the annual lost capacity. This is the difference between the inherent reliability and the demonstrated process reliability.

The area shaded (Light Green) accounts for 7% of the annual lost capacity which is generally considered “unrecoverable” due to the inherent reliability of the process.

The important point is that over 30% of a hidden plant exists within the existing plant structure which is not being converted to sellable product annually.

Join us on the Gold Coast for Reliability Summit 2014 to learn more about manufacturing process reliability. We will have industry leaders sharing their experiences and experts showcasing cool methods that you can use to advance your organisation with targeted improvements.

The key to efficiency is found along the shortest path between any two points.

It is remarkably simple to think of an efficient operation as one that runs in a straight line. Getting from point A to point B is rather “straight forward” they say.1

The challenge is to step back far enough from the daily nuances to be able to see the path we propose. With a clear view, we can see if it is relatively straight or if it is “remarkable” (in its curviness).

In order to travel the path of “straightness”, we need to understand each step we must take along the path. This allows us to understand which steps are then deemed as “extra steps” and are wasted energy without value. Knowing which steps we do not need helps us sharpen the focus on those we do need.
2

The “extra steps” that do not need to be taken – do not need to be taken.

They are simply wasted energy.

In Reliability circles, the Path between point A and Point B is the path between the RCM study and the fully prepared CMMS system that has delivered a new work instruction document to the technician. Arguably they contain more than just a few simple steps as I have illustrated.

This has added complexity when you are confronted with so many new technical jargons like maintenance items, schedule suppression, document information records, PRT, task lists, secondary tasks, and the like. The hidden purpose of these terms might seem like it is to simply confuse the issue, so set them aside for now, and just focus on getting from point A to point B.

The action of integrating a process for efficient action invokes a myriad of words that include “combination, amalgamation, unification, merging, fusing, meshing and blending”. The use of a consistent tool, like the Reliability Integration Tool (RIT), allows you to navigate this jargon with a simple process and traverse from point A to Point B easily.

When we integrate RCM with a leading CMMS like SAP or MAXIMO® we are faced with many additional choices. These additional choices arise because the flexibility in modern CMMS systems has evolved to service a broader spectrum of the market. The market has pushed the CMMS designer, to allow for their CMMS to fit a great many organisations easily. This means the CMMS can probably do anything, but in doing so the CMMS can also do several things you probably don’t need.

Knowing which CMMS features you need now is perhaps the most important “current issue” you will have to solve.

Key in this choice is to not install what I call a “Glass Ceiling”. A glass ceiling is an artificial barrier which limits your organisation growth, because you have configured your CMMS to accidently retard future growth. This can be avoided if you know which CMMS features you will “need in the next three years” before you lock down how your CMMS should operate today.

Today, your goal is still to get from point A to point B. Deliver into the hands of the waiting technician a fully featured professional work instruction when it is required, using the data from your RCM study.

To illustrate the point a little more clearly, let us consider we own a new large piece of equipment.

To ensure the equipment provides many years of trouble free operation, you will apply the RCM method to generate the “content” needed to prepare your initial maintenance strategy.

We can call this Point A!

It is with the application of this initial strategy and some improvement activities, you intend to operate the new asset, following the straightforward, prudent application of maintenance when it is needed, not before or later than needed. This is all considered best practice stuff – well done!

Now – let’s define Point B as the Preventative Work Instruction you will print from a CMMS work order and hand to your technician. This document is very important because it will serve as the transfer vehicle for all of your hard work. Recall you started with RCM preparing the maintenance strategy and have transitioned to the work instruction content that the technician can execute.

The challenge is of course getting the CMMS to print this document, on time, not early, and complete in the format needed by the technician.

This is not as easy as it sounds.

Understanding the underlying RCM Analysis database tables alone is complex. Aligning the RCM tables to the CMMS database tables is complex integration work that forces the data into load sheets for each CMMS table. This typically is a format that few understand well.

Factor in the requirement to produce a work instruction document using a standard template that looks like a professional work Instruction document, will generally involve a “heap” of work.

Faced with such a large amount of work, we all want an “easy” way out. What you need is a simple to use, consistently formatted set of tools that help you get from point A to point B. It is important to know that such a set of tools exist and they are easy to use. The ARMS Reliability’s Reliability Integration Tool (RIT) is the leading example of one of the tools currently available.

3

The individual toolset items take more space than that provided in this blog, so I will leave you with a teaser.

The tools do exist – and working with ARMS Reliability we can help you travel from point A to point B easily. We can help you do this without wasted steps and produce professional work instruction documents AND also load SAP, MAXIMO and most every other CMMS known to man.

To learn more:

This is just one of the many topics we will cover at the Reliability Summit 2014, October 27 to 30th. For further event details on speakers, topics, workshops, visit armsreliabilityevents.com. If you would like to discuss in further detail the Reliability Integration Tool with one of our consultants, please contact us at info@armsreliability.com

Reliability Summit Monochrome

 

Reduce costs and boost output by getting more out of your assets.

sweating_the_assetsAcross many industries, business conditions have become even tougher. Companies need new and smarter ways to boost margins if they want to remain successful into the future.

Economically, the short-term outlook for many industries is grim. Rising costs and falling commodity prices are putting pressure on the bottom line. Globally, demand in China is falling and businesses must become more competitive to survive. In this tough environment, companies need new ways to increase their margins.

This paper explores a range of methodologies for making assets run more productively, and to increase their value or reduce their costs in a substantial way that delivers long-term results for business. Read More →