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.

While there are three main reasons organizations typically perform Root Cause Analysis (RCA) following an issue with their asset or equipment, there are a whole host of other indicators that RCA should be performed.Cartoon_Man/HardHat

Odds are, you’re recording a lot of valuable information about the performance of your equipment – information that could reveal opportunities to perform an RCA, find causes, and implement solutions that will solve recurring problems and improve operations. But are you using your recorded information to this extent?

First, let’s quickly talk about three reasons why RCA is typically performed:

1. Because you have to

There may be a regulatory requirement to demonstrate that you are doing something about a problem that’s occurred.

2. You have breached a trigger point

Your own company has identified the triggers for significant incidents that warrant root cause analysis.

3. Because you want to

An opportunity has presented itself to make changes for the better. Or perhaps you’ve decided you simply don’t want to lose so much money all the time.

At the core of all industry is the desire to make money. Anything that negatively impacts this goal is usually attacked by performing root cause analysis.Oil And Gas Pipelines

I was having a conversation with a reliability engineer at an oil and gas site, and I asked him what lost opportunity or downtime might cost that company over the course of a year. He said it was in the vicinity of three quarters of a billion dollars – $750,000,000. Is this a good enough reason to perform root cause analysis? Even a 10% change would have a huge impact on bottom line figures.

The monetary impact to the business was of course not due to any single event, but to a multitude of events both large and small.

Each event presents itself as an opportunity to learn and to make any changes necessary to prevent its reoccurrence. Once can be written off as happenstance… things happen, serious or minor, and that’s life. But to let it happen continuously means that something is seriously wrong.

While these are all valid reasons to perform an RCA, there are at least ten more tell-tale equipment-related clues that an RCA needs to happen – most of which can be identified through the information you’re probably already recording.

Here are ten tell-tale signs that your organisation needs to perform Root Cause Analysis:

  1. Increased downtime to plant, equipment or process.
  2. Increase in recurring failures.
  3. Increase in overtime due to unplanned failures.
  4. Increase in the number of trigger events.
  5. Less availability of equipment.
  6. High level of reactive maintenance.
  7. Lack of time… simply can’t do everything that needs doing.
  8. Increase in the number of serious events… nearing the top of the pyramid.
  9. Longer planned “shut” durations.
  10. More frequent “shut” requirement.

These indicators imply that we need to be doing more in the realm of root cause analysis before these issues snowball.

If you can identify with some of these pain points, download our eBook “11 Problems With Your RCA Process and How to Fix Them” in which we provide best practice advice on using RCA to help eliminate some of these problems.

11Problems_Ebook_banner_576x247_72ppi

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.

Author: Kevin Stewart

At some point, most companies will want to see quantifiable metrics showing that their Root Cause Analysis (RCA) program has resulted in a positive return on investment (ROI).

ROI is relatively easy to calculate as a dollar value when it comes to tangibles such as equipment or production time. Things can seem trickier when trying to assign a dollar value to safety improvements resulting from an RCA program. Try to keep it simple.

This formula –

Cost of the Problem x Likely Recurrence / Cost of the Fix = ROI

is a straightforward way to begin quantifying the ROI of your RCA program, including its effects on safety.

Let’s look at how we might calculate these costs.

Cost of the Fix

  • Cost of an RCA investigation (you may need to include the initial training, though this should drop off as it is amoritized out over the program, as well as whatever time, resources, and people are required to conduct the investigation itself).
  • Cost of whatever resources are needed to implement a solution. Don’t forget to include new equipment, parts, additional training, and anything else that is directly attributable to the implementation.

When you eliminate a problem, calculating what you have saved depends a lot on the problem itself and what its rate of reoccurrence is. For instance, if you figure out what was causing a particular machine to fail at a rate of once/year, you won’t see the benefits of your solution for another year. It can take several years and solving many different problems to see the total value of an RCA program.

Improved safety isn’t as impossible to quantify as it might seem. While most companies don’t publicly discuss this type of equation because it can seem insensitive, chances are your company does calculate the monetary cost of an injury or death on the job. These figures may be a bit outdated, but the Mine Safety and Health Administration at the US Department of Labor offers an online calculator, which takes into account both direct costs (like workers’ comp claims) and indirect costs (like training a new worker and lower morale), as one example.

Cost of the Problem Reoccurring

Cost of the initial problem in equipment, production delays, man hours, workers’ comp claims, medical costs, absenteeism, turnover, training new employees, lower productivity, decreased morale, legal fees, increased insurance costs.

At first glance the equation doesn’t quite make sense for a safety “near miss.” If it missed then what did it cost? Is the answer nothing? So the ROI is:  0 x likely recurrence/cost of the fix = 0? The answer obviously must include the potential cost. The cost to the business if the issue was on target and hadn’t missed. It all becomes subjective then. How do you put a cost on maybes?

It might help to look at the statistics of how an incident occurs. Take the cost to the business if a single major accident occurred (every business has this unspoken cost locked away somewhere) and then very simply do the math. One near miss will be worth 0.003 of that cost. Tally up your near misses and now go back to the formula.

AccidentPyramid_V2

As an example, say your data indicates you have 3000 near misses in two years, or 4.1 incidents per day. Then you put a program in place and now you have 3000 near misses in four years, or 2.1 incidents per day. This translates to 3000 fewer near misses in two years time. Per the above calculations, this would generate 3000 x 0.003 or nine fewer major incidents at whatever cost your company assigns to that type of incident. This becomes the savings for your ROI (or the Cost of the Problem in our equation) and can be attributed to the safety program of which the RCA process is a part.

This formula will assist in calculating an ROI on an individual RCA, which is necessary to show that the process is working and providing value so you can justify the program. However, since most safety programs track TRIR (Total Recordable Injury Rate) or something to that effect, you will also need to show that the RCA program affects this, too. This will be difficult because the safety program is in place and doing other things to prevent safety incidents before they happen. How do you attribute a reduction in near misses to preventive programs versus items put in place from an RCA?

You may never be able to separate these items. Even with detailed records, it is not always clear why people do what they do. The best thing you can do is to track when an RCA program was incorporated and then show the improvement in your safety metric, in TRIR, or near misses.

You can use this information to justify the program with the argument that the RCA process is part of the overall safety program and it really doesn’t matter which gets the credit as long as we have continued to drive safety improvements. The RCA program should be a small part of the overall safety program costs since there are usually several full time safety people involved, committee meetings, safety initiatives, programs, etc.

It doesn’t matter how you slice and dice it, the return on investment for your RCA program boils down to: What will it cost me to fix the problem now? – versus – What is the cost if this problem happens again?

Author: Jack Jager

An effective root cause analysis process can improve business outcomes significantly. Why is it then that few organisations have a functioning root cause analysis process in place?

Here are the top 6 sure-fire ways to kill off a Root Cause Analysis program

1. Don’t use it.

stop-hand

The company commits to the training, creates an expectation of use and then doesn’t follow through with commitment, process and resources! Now come on, how easy is it to devalue the training and deliver a message that the training was just to tick someone’s KPI box and that the process doesn’t really need to be used.

2. Don’t support it.

Success in Root Cause Analysis would be the ultimate goal of each and every defect elimination program. To achieve success however, requires a bit more than just training people in how to do it. It requires structures that initially support the training, that mentor and provide feedback on the journey towards application of excellence and thereafter have structures that delineate exactly when an investigation needs to take place and that delivers clear support in terms of time and people to achieve the desired outcome. Without support for the chosen process the expected outcomes are rarely delivered.

3. Don’t implement solutions.

To do all of the work involved in an investigation and then notice that there have been no corrective actions implemented, that the problem has recurred because nothing has changed, has got to be one of the easiest ways to kill off a Root Cause Analysis process. What happens when people get asked to get involved in RCAs or to facilitate them when the history indicates that nothing happens from the efforts expended in this pursuit? “I’m too busy to waste my time on that stuff!”

 

4. Take the easy option and implement soft solutions.

Why are the soft controls implemented instead of the hard controls? Because they are easy and they don’t cost much and we are seen to be doing something about the problem. We have ticked all the boxes. But will this prevent recurrence of the problem? There is certainly no guarantee of this if it is only the soft controls that we implement. We aren’t really serious about problem solving are we, if this is what we continue to do?

5. Continue to blame people.

The easy way out! Find a scapegoat for any problem that you don’t have time to investigate or that you simply can’t be bothered to investigate properly. But will knowing who did it, actually prevent rectraining your staff urrence of the problem?

Ask a different question! How do you control what people do? You control them or more correctly their actions by training them, by putting in the right procedures and protocols, by providing clear guidelines into what they can or can’t do, by creating standard work    instructions for everyone to follow and by clearly establishing what the rules are in the work place that must be adhered to.

What sort of controls are these if we measure them against the hierarchy of controls? They are all administrative controls, deemed to be soft controls that will give you no certainty that the problem will not happen again. We know this! So why do we implement these so readily? Because it is the easy way out! It ticks all the boxes, except the one that says “will these corrective actions prevent recurrence of the problem?”

We all understand the hierarchy of controls but do we actually use it to the extent that we should?

6. We don’t know if we are succeeding because we don’t measure anything.

You get what you measure! When management don’t implement or audit a process for completed RCAs it sends a strong message that there is no interest, or little, in the work that is being done to complete the analysis.

Tracking KPIs like, how many RCAs have been raised against the triggers set? How many actions have been raised in the month as a result and, of those actions raised, how many have been completed? If management is not interested in reviewing these things regularly along with the number of RCAs subsequently closed off in a relevant period, then it won’t be long before people notice that no one is interested in the good work being done.

The additional work done to complete RCAs will not be seen as necessary, as it’s not important enough to review and the work or the effort in doing this will then drop away until it’s no longer done at all.

measuring success

Another interesting point is that if only the number of investigations is reported, and there is no check on the quality of the analysis being completed, then anything can be whipped up as no one is looking! If a random audit is completed on just one of the analyses completed in a month then this implies that the quality of the analysis is important to the organisation.

What message do we send if we don’t measure anything?

 

 

In closing, the first step on the road to implementing an effective and sustainable Root Cause Analysis program is to pinpoint what’s holding it back. These Top 6 sure-fire ways to kill off a Root Cause Analysis program will help you identify your obstacles, and allow you to develop a plan to overcome them.

Screen Shot 2014-09-25 at 4.28.39 pm

improve-reliabilityPhilip 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? Read More →

This question was posed to a discussion group and it got me thinking how do you grade an investigation?
The overall success will be whether the solution actually prevents recurrence of the problem.  One definition of Root Cause Analysis is: “A structured process used to understand the causes of past events for the purpose of preventing recurrence.” So a reasonable assessment of the quality of the analysis would be to determine whether the RCA addressed the problem it set out to fix by ensuring that it never happens again (this may be a lengthy process to prove if the MTBF of the problem is 5 years, or has only happened once).quality-blocks1

Are there some other tangibles that can help you assess the quality of an RCA?  RCAs use some sort of process to accomplish their task. If this is the case then it would stand to reason that there will be some things you can look for in order to gauge the quality of the process followed. While this is no guarantee of a correct analysis, ensuring that due diligence was followed in the process  would lend more credibility to the solutions.

What are some of these criteria by which you can judge an analysis?

  • Are the cause statements ‘binary’? By this we mean unambiguous or explicit. A few words only and precise language use without vague adjectives like “poor” since they can be very subjective.
  • Are the causes void of conjunctions? If they have conjunctions there may be multiple causes in the statement. Words such as: and, if, or, but, because.
  • Is there valid evidence for each cause? If causes don’t have evidence they may not belong in the analysis or worse yet solutions may be tied to them and be ineffective.
  • Does each cause path have a valid reason for stopping that makes sense? It is easy to stop too soon and is sometimes obvious. For example, if a cause of “no PM” has no cause for it so that the branch stops, it would seem that an analyst in most cases would want to know why there was no PM.
  • Does the structure of the chart meet the process being used? If it is a principle-based process then it should be easy to check the causal elements to verify that they satisfy those principles. These might be causal logic checks or space time logic checks or others that were associated with the particular process.
  • Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?

qualifying criteria

  • Is the chart or analysis completed? Does it have a lot of unfinished branches or questions that need to be answered or action items to complete?
  • Are the solutions SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timely)? Or do they include words like: investigate, review, analyze, gather, contact, observe, verify, etc.
  • Do the solutions meet a set of criteria against which they can be judged?
  • Do the solutions address specific causes or are they general in nature?  Even though they may be identified against specific causes if they don’t directly address those causes then it may still be a SWAG*.
  • If there is a report, is it well written, short, specific and cover just the basics that an executive would be interested in? Information such as cost, time to implement, when will it be completed, a brief causal description and solutions that will solve the identified problem are the requisites.

These are some of the things that I currently look at when I review the projects submitted by clients. I’d be interested to know about other things that may be added to the list.

* SWAG =  Scientific Wild Ass Guess

training_footer_ad1-resized-600.jpg

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