Up Time Magazine- August/September 2008

Decision Making Model 4 6 9 12 34 7 3 10 8 5 2 DIFFICULTY (Cost, Time Complexity) Figure 13 - Decision Making Model 1 VALUE 12 11 the support functions. Next, we prioritize those losses that provide the greatest opportunity for improvement, and select the appropriate tools for eliminating or minimizing them. Note that at this point we do NOT try to solve any of the problems we identify. We will prioritize the results of our analysis using the model in Figure 13. For example, after we analyze our business level failures and place a nominal value on them, then we’ll “plot” them on a chart similar to Figure 13. Tasks that are easy to do and have the most value, get done first; tasks that have less value, and are easy to do get done next; tasks that have high value, but are difficult to do, for example, changing a major technical process or getting capital funding, are done next. The last category, tasks that have low value, and are difficult to do, may not get done at all, at least not in this round of improvements. For example, at one of ABC’s plants, task no. 1 of the Decision Making Model in Figure 13 required a major design change to the process, including considerable capital. It provided high value, but was also difficult to do. Whereas task no. 4 provided high value, but was relatively easy to do. This had to do with getting operators trained to follow a particular procedure, one that they had not been doing because of a lack of training and understanding of its importance. A word of caution in doing the analysis relates to identifying preliminary or potential causes. Very often the team will want to begin solving the problem after they’ve suggested some potential causes. This should not be done at this time. The purpose of this question is to get people thinking about potential causes, but not to solve www.uptimemagazine.com the problem. We won’t begin problem solving until after we’ve plotted the opportunities in the decision making model chart. After that, we can select those problems that provide the highest return for the least effort given our resources, and we can select the right tool for the problem solving. Too often people want to immediately begin problem solving, particularly engineers who like to develop engineering solutions. Hold that until after the analysis is completed. At this point, you’re guessing at the value and difficulty of each problem, and need to refine your analysis and plans as you get additional detail and validation of the initial review. • Poor power quality resulting in electronic problems and failures • Operator inexperience and lack of training resulting in inconsistencies and failures • Inadequate lubrication resulting in machinery failures; or lubrication delegated to the operators without adequate training, or buy-in • Mechanics were in need of training on critical equipment and/or precision skills Selecting the Right Tools Using this approach to better understand and prioritize production losses and extraordinary costs, we can now do a better job selecting the appropriate tool and approach to solve or mitigate the problem. Our strategy will be based on a system level review of our production process. For example: 1. If supplier quality was a top priority, we could work with purchasing to improve their supply, perhaps even applying Six Sigma in an effort to reduce the variability of their supply; or go to an alternative supplier. 2. If the next biggest opportunity was inconsistency in our production process due to a lack of training in our operators, we would probably set up a process conformance model to measure our non-conformances and characterize those; and ask human resources or training to develop a plan to address their skills in operating the system. 3. If the next biggest opportunity was related to a specific machine and its un-reliability, we might apply Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) initially, to better understand the machine’s functional requirements and the failure modes that are resulting in loss of functionality. Next, and if appropriate, we might apply certain Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) principles, e.g., operator care, or better preventive and predictive maintenance to better manage these failure modes. If the problem with the machine was particularly difficult, we might use Root Cause Analysis (RCA). 4. If the next biggest opportunity was to reduce the erratic nature of production planning and frequent changeovers, we might work with sales and marketing to analyze our product mix, sales and gross profit by product. It may be helpful to enlist key customers’ views to better understand, and rationalize, our product mix, and sometimes even our customers. We would probably also want to implement a quick changeover capability, and work to level our production flow, even at the risk of modestly increasing inventory in the short term. 5. If the next biggest opportunity was to reduce spares un-availability, we would probably want One of the key benefits of this approach is that people are working as a team, using a common strategy that’s focused on the success of the production line – it has a business system focus for the teams. And, the team develops an action plan to improve the overall system performance. That, in itself, is invaluable. Typical Results ABC has found the following to be fairly common problems at almost all its plants when doing a business level FMEA. Case studies will be provided later that illustrate these problems: • Lack of understanding of the pacing or bottleneck unit for setting production requirements; and/or not fully understanding the impact of upstream and downstream area performance on each other, and the plant’s overall performance • In batch and discrete plants – changeover time and setup/startup problems; in process plants – transition losses due to changes in products and/or raw material • In discrete plants – production stops for breaks and lunch; and short stops that do not get counted • Raw material problems – poor quality and/or insufficient quantity • Erratic production planning, primarily driven by erratic sales forecasts • Equipment failures • Spare parts unavailability or poor quality • Design/layout features making maintenance difficult 19 http://www.uptimemagazine.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Up Time Magazine- August/September 2008

Up Time Magazine- August/September 2008 Contents Upfront Upclose Information Technology Lubrication Infrared Maintenance Management Motor Testing Precision Maintenance Reliability Ultrasound Vibration Upgrade

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.