Up Time Magazine- April/May 2008 - (Page 23) Plant-Wide Maintenance Manager Area 1 Maintenance Superintendent Area 2 Maintenance Superintendent Area 3 Maintenance Superintendent Central Shops Reliability Engineering Senior Planner TABWARE Administrator Dept Electrical Maintenance Foreman Dept Electrical Maintenance Craftspeople Dept Mechanical Maintenance Foreman Dept Mechanical Maintenance Craftspeople Dept Electrical Maintenance Foreman Dept Electrical Maintenance Craftspeople Dept Mechanical Maintenance Foreman Dept Mechanical Maintenance Craftspeople Dept Electrical Maintenance Foreman Dept Electrical Maintenance Craftspeople Dept Mechanical Maintenance Foreman Dept Mechanical Maintenance Craftspeople Inspectors Planners and Schedulers Figure 1 - Original Maintenance Organizational Chart and Revised with Planners, Schedulers and Reliability Engineering Added (shown in Yellow) ments that had them, and began writing master preventive maintenance plans into TabWare to mimic what PM tasks were being performed to date. In departments or areas where no CMMS or formal system was in use, we applied the master plans for similar pieces of equipment located elsewhere in the plant in order to ensure that we had basic PM coverage for the majority of our equipment. Initially, we had approximately 300 master plans in TabWare which were executed against thousands of pieces of equipment. These master plans covered all frequency of PM tasks including weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannual and annual. Care was taken when we launched the PMs to keep the work load level. We took into consideration the distribution of monthly, quarterly and annual tasks performed on groups of equipment so that they did not all need to be done in the same week. The initial assumption was that all of the existing preventive programs that were being morphed into TabWare master plans were valid in both content and frequency of execution until proven otherwise. In order to keep track of this assumption, all of these initial master plans were assigned numbers beginning with the letter “I” to denote interim. As these plans were reviewed for content and frequency, they became validated master plans and the “I” designation was dropped. As we were preparing to launch TabWare, two new groups were formed, a planner and scheduler group and a Reliability Engineering group. The planning and scheduling group was staffed by taking a maintenance foreman from each department and making that person the planner for that department. These planners reported to a Senior Planner who reported to the Maintenance Manager. The Reliability Engineering group also reported directly to the Maintenance Manager. Additionally, a TabWare administrawww.uptimemagazine.com tor was designated to be the gatekeeper of the new system and to control and issue clearances to system access and to help generate metrics that were queried from TabWare. The organizational chart was then resembled with the additional parts shown in Figure 1. Additionally, to prepare for the new system launch, we used various public relations tools to spread the word about the upcoming changes. One tool was the publication of a brochure that was handed out at meetings held with the maintenance craft persons prior to implementation. This brochure told in plain language what the changes were going to be and why. The maintenance process was given the acronym of P.R.E.D.I.C.T.S The meaning of the acronym is shown in Figure 2. These departmental meetings were chaired by either a Reliability Engineer or Senior Planner, with the Maintenance Group Superintendent also attending to reinforce the acceptance of the program. The brochures and future plans were discussed in detail and the crafts people were given time to ask questions about the new system. In retrospect, however, we should have distributed the brochures about a week in advance of the meetings to allow time for all questions to be thought about. So, after several months of work, we had moved from a plant that had no coordinated CMMS with planning/scheduling and no Reliability Engineering department, to a plant that had both. That was the easy part. Now the real work began. The basic tools were in place, but the culture remained unchanged. Not every maintenance person in the organization was gung-ho about having a CMMS system that would document everything they did, how long they took to do the work and spit preventive maintenance work orders out at them like clockwork. Additionally, the CMMS could be queried to look at cost, safety, work order backlog or just about any metric you could imagine. Very quickly we realized that our maintenance program had its flaws, and that, without a CMMS system in place, those flaws were not quite so exposed. And since you can’t know how to fix something until you know how it is broken, one advantage of the CMMS is that you begin to see how your maintenance system is broken. You begin to get a clearer picture of what happens if you are understaffed, or don’t have the needed repair parts or skip a weekly downturn. As work order history was entered into TabWare over the ensuing months, the CMMS began to be a useful tool for the Reliability Engineering group in performing root cause failure analysis (RCFA) and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA). By comparing FMEA hypotheses against the tasks listed in the master plans for the equipment in question, iterations could begin on developing the exact best preventive and predictive maintenance tasks needed for those pieces of equipment. P.R.E.D.I.C.T.S A Management Commitment That: • • • • • • • Prevents Chronic Failures Reduces Equipment Delays Evaluates Equipment Performance Develops Skilled Craftsmen Insures Available Operating Uptime Corrects Equipment Defects Targets Improved Operating Performance Figure 2 - P .R.E.D.I.C.T.S Acronym 23 http://www.uptimemagazine.com
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.