8 steps to improve asset reliability: Part 1

Establish a solid foundation for reliability by first focusing on the basics.

By Jeff Shiver, People and Processes

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page

Many organizations struggle with a high level of uncertainty when it comes to asset reliability. Whether equipment will be available when it’s needed to meet customer demands may be anyone’s guess. Loss of availability results in increased human and monetary costs and often can jeopardize safety or environmental regulations compliance.

When digging deeper to determine the root causes of unreliability, you’ll often find the MRO storeroom not functioning well, the PM program poorly designed (at best) and without use of effective condition-based approaches, a lack of maintenance planning, and a minimal weekly maintenance schedule. Add to that limited partnerships with other stakeholders, such as production teams, which often don’t make the equipment available for maintenance. Production personnel often lack standardized work practices themselves and induce failures while operating the equipment.

To establish a solid foundation for reliability, the organization must first address the basics. There are eight steps to accomplish this, presented here in no particular order.

1. Align the organization for reliability

In conducting this alignment, there are three questions to address:

  • Which job positions are affected?
  • What are the role expectations?
  • How is position performance measured?

I once taught a maintenance planner-scheduler course for a large facility. During my time there, I spent a few hours each day outside of class on a smaller-scale effort to educate the production supervisors. I asked a group of 10 production supervisors, each of whom had responsibility for separate lines of production equipment, “When downtime strikes, whose line is most important?” They all raised their hand in the air.

Most organizations lack formal work processes that come in the form of graphical process workflows, RACI or RASI charts, and definitions documents. While these may seem trivial to many and extra work with little return, the reality is that many organizations don’t have clearly defined roles and responsibilities. They may have job descriptions when hiring, but the activities are often different when in the field. Efforts overlap and are often duplicated in the name of getting the job done. The onboarding process for new team members takes longer than necessary. These work processes define the roles required as well as their responsibilities.

In most organizations, I look for the positions identified in Table 1, along with the spans of control where applicable. When looking at the spans of control, consider them with respect to organizational size and process maturity. The spans of control are guidelines, and the numbers are intended for multiples of a position, meaning that if 55 technicians exist, then two to three planner-schedulers are required.

On process maturity, if the organization is new to or not robust in its maintenance planning and scheduling activities, it’s better to err toward the lower number until the processes are established. For example, with a maintenance planner-scheduler, use multiples of 20 technicians. In smaller organizations, don’t assume that you don’t need a role because the number of technicians falls below the lower number on the span of control. You can easily justify a full-time planner-scheduler for 8–10 technicians. The position of maintenance or reliability engineer often is overlooked in smaller organizations. This position is all about continuous improvement. I encourage organizations to dedicate some level of resourcing to the function, even if it is a technician devoting four hours per week to looking at problems and equipment history in an effort to improve.

2. Determine your maintenance strategies

I have found on site visit after site visit that organizations are doing too much time-based preventive maintenance. In many cases, those same organizations are issuing multiple PMs for a given period on the same asset (i.e. weekly or monthly basis). Many of these PMs are the result of knee-jerk reactions to past failures and are not generated from a root-cause perspective. I have seen as many as 10 separate PMs with the same weekly PM frequency on the same machine.

Sadly, most of these PM tasks (40%–60% from RCM2 studies) fail to address any likely failure modes. Most organizations in the top percentile of performance do only about 20% of their physical maintenance based on time. Moreover, intrusive maintenance introduces failure to an otherwise stable system at the rate of 70% or more. Winston Ledet, in his book “Don’t Just Fix It, Improve It,” says that 84% of failures are due to poor work behaviors.

1 of 2 < 1 | 2 View on one page
Show Comments
Hide Comments

Join the discussion

We welcome your thoughtful comments.
All comments will display your user name.

Want to participate in the discussion?

Register for free

Log in for complete access.

Comments

No one has commented on this page yet.

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments