Food Processing - August 2008 - (Page 45)

PREDICTIVE MAINTENANCE “production, research and QC departments can all operate with the same system,” according to Tim Good, president. “But the food industry really hasn’t caught on yet,” adds Craig Miller, food accounts manager at Ashcom, Ann Arbor, Mich. “All the audits the food industry has to undergo – AIB, HACCP, GMPs – are taking all the spending. But it’s precisely the kind of data that CMMS systems collect and their auditing functions that can make these certification programs easier.” “The whole shift today is that there’s more integration coming into the picture,” says Wil Chin, director of field systems for ARC Advisory Group (www.arcweb.com). Facing a proliferation of standards and no single best tech- nology for integrating all applications, “there’s always going to be more than once choice,” Chin says. “The maintenance guy and the operator only want to view one application that can not only see the automation assets but the “A cultural shift has been going on for the past 20 years in American industry,” says Steve Matthews, business manager for Predictive Maintenance Solutions (www.pdmsolutions.com). “Going forward, the most competitive companies will not be looking at their maintenance departments as cost centers but as profit centers. The real value of maintenance isn’t fixing things when they’re broken. The real value of a maintenance department is to deliver plant uptime.” SAP (www.sapcenter.com), the enterprise vendor with an equally dominant maintenance module, is promoting a survey conducted by Reliabilityweb.com in which only 20 percent of respondents characterized their CMMS/EAM implementation as successful and 57 percent said theirs failed to generate the anticipated return on investment. That doesn’t sound like cause for celebration. But things could be changing as technology standards like Open O&M (see www.FoodProcessing.com/OpenOandM) take root. In his own pitch to industry, Matthews’ favorite survey is more optimistic for those in a preventive, conditionbased maintenance mindset. He cites an Electric Power Research Institute (www.epri.com) study in which maintenance costs are figured in dollars per horsepower. Reactive or failure-based maintenance was $17, preventive was $13, which is 24 percent lower, and predictive was $9, which is 47 percent lower than reactive/running to fail. foodprocessing.com NOTE TO MANAGEMENT August 2008 food processing • 45 http://www.arcweb.com http://www.pdmsolutions.com http://www.sapcenter.com http://Reliabilityweb.com http://www.tetrapakprocessing.com http://www.FoodProcessing.com/OpenOandM http://www.FoodProcessing.com/OpenOandM http://www.tetrapakprocessing.com http://www.epri.com http://foodprocessing.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Food Processing - August 2008

Food Processing - August 2008 Contents Editor’s Plate NewsBites Special Report Rollout Food Biz Kids The Top 100 Ingredients Show Report Plant Operations MRO Q&A Case History New Supplier Products Toops Scoops

Food Processing - August 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.