Up Time Magazine - February/March 2009 - (Page 19) frequency. For example, proper care of just one lubrication point will require topping-off a reservoir each week, drawing a lab-sample every quarter, and draining and refilling with fresh fluid once a year. Several thousand lube-points, each with multiple tasks at varying frequencies — it can easily work out to be hundreds of thousands of activities needing to be performed annually. This means, in order to ensure ongoing performance and reliability, many plants should be performing over 250,000 lubrication activities each year. In fact, one proactive and successful East Coast paper plant reports performing over 700,000 lubrication activities annually. apply it to other uses. 900,000 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 LUBE-IT CMMS Lubrication Tasks CM + PM Work Orders Now consider the problem of so many lubrication points spread across several acres, numerous buildings, or multiple stories. This is even further complicated by an array of required lubricants, and the fact that distinct procedures are often required for each of the activities performed at a lubrication point. Figure 1 - Lube-It™ can catalog all lubrication points for an entire plant, while CMMS are not designed to generate either the numbers or the detail required in a task specific lubrication system. As mentioned above, CM & PM workorders typically number less than a few thousand annually, while annual lubrication activities can range up over 700,000. While the typical CMMS adeptly catalogs equipment at the nameplate level, these systems lack a clear approach for cataloging the multiple related lubrication points, let alone the multiple activities for each of these points. Also missing are the many data elements regularly found in the previously explained spreadsheets. The fact that these discipline-specific details are missing from the typical CMMS is the main reason such spreadsheets find common use. tasks. While able to convey the basics of what needs to be done and how often, such spreadsheets fail in knowing or communicating what specifically needs to be done and when. Most often lacking is the tracking of dates last completed—accurately entering this information for thousands of rows is an impossibly arduous task. Yet, while updating spreadsheets proves difficult, accidental changes and deletions come all too easy. Knowledge of when tasks were last completed is the prerequisite to determining when individual tasks are next-due—without which the all-important questions remain unanswered. Which tasks are to be done this week? Which were missed last week? Also consider the hundreds of activities of longer duration, such as those performed every quarter, six-months, or once every year. It’s simply not possible to correctly remember when each activity was last completed. Once again the burden for proper lubrication is consigned to human memory. And again, lube-points are most likely being missed. Relying on standard CMMS/EAM systems — A third common approach is attempting to properly execute lubrication using the PM system of a CMMS or EAM product. Focused on Condition Monitoring (CM) & Preventive Maintenance (PM) work-order management, these systems perform the role well, and most maintenance professionals are comfortable in their use. Yet comfort with a system’s intended function is far from the best reason to How is this daunting task typically being handled? Unfortunately, it’s often left, either in full or in part, to human memory. Common Approaches Reliance on Human Memory — In some cases, lubrication maintenance personnel have been tending the equipment for years, resulting in detailed understanding of the needs. Hopefully, these experienced personnel are never sick or on leave. Or worse yet, what are the consequences when just one resigns or retires? A mission-critical information asset is lost as they walk out the door. This starts a long and costly program of reassembling details and knowledge lost. Meanwhile, lacking experience, how does the new person on the block possibly lubricate without significant omission? Under this scenario, lube-points will, in all likelihood, be missed. Reliance on spreadsheets — Another widely used method is the computer spreadsheet. Typically this comprises a list of equipment along with numerous columns for lubrication specific data fields such as lubrication points and type, required lubricant, lubricant capacity and the frequencies at which to perform www.uptimemagazine.com This lack of requisite details leads many into a minimalist, work-order level approach to lubrication. Simple monthly PMs are created for each equipment section or area, producing work orders with generic instructions such as “Lubricate stations 1 thru 8,” or “Check Levels in Bldg 12.” Striving for more detail, one plant of an integrated forest products company was required by corporate to use SAP to manage its lubrication program. The plant’s reliability engineer invested months of effort on repetitive keyboard entry of lubrication details into long-text fields. Shortly thereafter, and much to his dismay, it was decided to switch more than 200 reservoirs to synthetic lubricants—leaving him to edit each individually. Furthermore, with his hands tied by data locked into non-actionable text-fields, he was forced to answer with a definitive “NO,” when the plant manager asked him if his time and effort had resulted in an accurate and consistent lubrication program. Many CMMS products allow for inclusion of a list or block of items with a PM, which can be used to list the lubrication points for an equipment area. Sounds simple doesn’t it? Unfortunately, the actual complexities of lubrication cannot be overlooked. Lubrication points within any equipment area are not identical. One key differentiator is the variation of frequency. Examples of such variation include some points being done weekly or biweekly, others monthly, bimonthly, quarterly or annually. A single PM can’t address this fact, resulting in multiple PMs being created, one per frequency, for each equipment 19 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.