Up Time Magazine - December 2008/January 2009 - (Page 22) RCM & FMEA, rather than a competing initiative (Figure 1). Optimization at the PM Level After each of the PM tasks is optimized and assigned accurate scheduling criteria (e.g. frequency, skill/craft, run status, etc.), the tasks are grouped back together into “PMs” according to these criteria. At this point, the PM tasks can be further optimized by applying more efficient means to execute them as groups of PM tasks. Examples include issuing PM tasks as part of an organized route, separating “down” PM tasks from “running” PM tasks, scheduling PMs only after all required resources are available, and scheduling for the lowest skill level required. of these that exist at the site should provide feedback to the PM system as an indication of equipment reliability, again allowing real-time monitoring of the effectiveness of the PM tasks. Such a process links existing information systems with a system used to change behavior in how we care for our equipment assets. The process of 3-Dimensional PMOptimizationSM takes the PM program to previously unreachable new levels by fusing common sense, reliability disciplines, and automation powered by Reliability FusionTM, the world’s first 3-D PMOptimization system. Figure 5 - PM Task Pass/Fail Analysis allows real-time monitoring of the PM Tasks. Optimization of the PM process is also addressed at this point. Some PM tasks that are inspections (Type 2 Subjective or Type 3 Objective) are sometimes written as “Inspect & change if necessary”. When something is found to be wrong during one of these PM inspection tasks, don’t immediately fix it (unless it meets predefined criteria). Often times when a craftsperson finds something wrong during a PM, he feels he has not done his job if he walks away without making an attempt to fix it. Is the work required to correct the identified item planned? Does he have the parts, special tools, manuals, etc. in hand? Does he have time? If the answer to any of these is “no”, he is likely doing REACTIVE maintenance within the PM. A crucial role of good PM tasks is to identify a backlog of work that can be made more efficient through good planning and scheduling. Create a corrective or repair type work order to document the item and put it in the system to be planned and scheduled. reading can then be used to trend equipment condition, effectively turning a Type 3 Objective Inspection into a Type 4 Condition Monitoring task. What is currently done with this gathered data? With limited technology, the most common answer unfortunately is to put it in a file system or create an additional spreadsheet. Either of these choices demonstrates a disconnect between PM Data and further dynamic Optimization. Because this process is very data-intensive (i.e. number of machines, times numbers of functions, times number of components, times number of failure modes/likely causes), it is recommended that the process be automated (Figure 5), or it won’t happen. CMMS software packages, whether part of an ERP application or stand-alone, are invaluable to a Maintenance organization. However, very few treat PM tasks as individual live records at the failure mode level. Rather they provide a place to put the PM tasks as part of an overall PM. Edward J. Stanek, Jr. is the Co-Owner / President ofLAI Reliability Systems, Inc. Ed has been involved in the development of reliability and maintenance systems for the past 22 years, and has worked extensively on TPM implementation and process development with small to medium-sized companies. Building shop floor involvement and maintenance support systems, his projects set record-breaking performance improvements. As Co-Owner and President of LAI, Ed leads the organization with ongoing product development and unique processes. Combining the concepts of constraint management and reliability, Ed, who is a past chairman of STLE, has redefined how Maintenance Optimization and Continuous Improvement are implemented. Tibor L. Jung is the Co-Owner / VP / Senior Project Leader for LAI Reliability Systems, Inc. Tibor has over 25 years of experience in the maintenance & reliability field as a representative of LAI. His vast equipment reliability experience was the foundation that allowed him to develop a side of LAI’s offerings that focuses on the business processes of maintenance & reliability. His expertise in optimizing both key Production processes as well as Maintenance & Reliability processes allows him to provide more holistic solutions to clients’ needs that are geared towards bringing together previously conflicting factions within clients’ organizations, with the focus of greater reliability to “get more product out the door” and to lower costs. LAI Reliability Systems ®, PM Optimization, 3-D PM Optimization, 3-Dimensional PM Optimization, and Reliability Fusion are service marks of LAI Reliability Systems, Inc., Antioch, Illinois (with regional offices in Franklin, Tennessee). All rights reserved. 2nd Dimension: PM Task Pass/Fail Analysis Once the Initial PM Optimization is complete, it is critical to get feedback from the PM process as confirmation of the decisions made, as well as to look for additional opportunities for further optimization. Since the PM tasks exist to protect required equipment functions against specific failure modes, dynamic feedback must be provided for either the failure mode and/or its root cause. This is referred to as PM Task Pass/Fail Analysis. Thresholds set for pass/fail for each failure mode, cause or reading taken, make it possible to monitor the effectiveness of the PM tasks real-time. Also, if a task exists for gathering a reading from a gauge, the 3rd Dimension: Equipment Reliability Analysis The final aspect of 3-Dimensional PMOptimization is the ability to communicate with day-today-events from the equipment to an ongoing evaluation of the PM activities. The basic question is, “Are the failures or undesirable events on the equipment preventable through PM and what gaps exist in the data?” Again, when completed, this task is typically performed manually, outside the PM data as there is a disconnect between the failure under review and the PM data intended to preserve the component. This data resides in data systems such as the CMMS , equipment downtime tracking, Overall Equipment Effectiveness monitoring, SCADA systems, PLC fault tracking, etc. Each 22 16 december/january 2009
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.