Up Time Magazine- April/May 2008 - (Page 24) The CMMS system was set up so that work orders could be generated in one of three types. First was the Emergency Work Order (EM). These work orders were entered to document the work performed on a piece of equipment that had failed. The work order was entered either as the repairs were underway, or after the repairs were completed, with priority given to completing the repair as quickly as possible to allow production to resume. Since these work orders were entered in response to a failure, the volume of this type of work order was a measure of how reactive the maintenance system was. The second type of work order was the Routine Work Order (RT). These were entered upon discovery of a piece of equipment that had symptoms of impending failure. These symptoms might be discovered by the operator of the equipment, a maintenance craft person performing routine inspections, or by use of one of the predictive maintenance tools (vibration, thermography or ultrasound). These work orders were entered and routed through the department’s planner. The planner’s function was to plan the weekly downturn workload, make sure the necessary materials were on site and coordinate with departmental maintenance leaders and contractors as needed to get each week’s work orders completed. The third type of work order was the Preventive Work Order (PM). These work orders were automatically generated by the CMMS as dictated by the master plan(s) for that equipment. The Reliability Engineering group had set up all the master plans, including the tasks to be performed and the frequency of execution and assigned these to specific equipment numbers. The CMMS then automatically generated the PMs at the required frequency. One of the major metrics that was monitored was each area’s PM compliance. This measured what percent of the week’s PMs had been completed on time versus what percent had either been closed without time being charged to the work order or had become delinquent. As with most maintenance organizations, especially those trying to move away from being reactive, there was some backlash as the CMMS began issuing preventive maintenance work orders. Prior to the implementation of the CMMS and Reliability function, each maintenance department had fixed things as they had broken or were obviously about to break, with little time for doing preventive functions. Now, they were faced with doing those same repairs along with the addition of weekly, monthly, quarterly, semiannual and annual PM work orders. Adding to the frustration was the fact that the CMMS al- lowed anyone to easily look at how efficiently and effectively all of this work was being done. The initial Reliability Engineering group consisted of two staff reliability engineers and one consultant engineer (a member of the consultant group assisting in the CMMS implementation). We also had one inspector on staff that focused primarily on the collection of vibration data. The reliability engineers initially focused on helping to construct the equipment lists and hierarchies and entering PM tasks already in place. Once the CMMS was up and running, the Reliability Engineering group focused on the following tasks: • Review and validate the interim master plans for content and frequency • Create new master plans for equipment that previously had no formal PM program • Begin performing root cause failure analysis (RCFA) and failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) on the most critical equipment • Perform delay analysis to focus efforts on the Top 10 delay causes We enlisted the help of Reliability Center Inc. to provide on-site RCFA and FMEA training to the reliability engineers and to a group from one of our operating departments where most of our Condition Monitoring for profitable maintenance warning danger under control SPM is totally committed to keeping your machines running 24/7. We have the experience, the organisation and the know-how to increase availability and profitability of your production equipment. Contact us today. 1-800 505 5636. www.spminstrument.us 24 40 april/may 2008 http://www.ivctechnologies.com http://www.spminstrument.us http://www.ivctechnologies.com http://www.spminstrument.us
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.