Maintenance Technology April 2016 - (Page 8)
ON THE FLOOR
An outlet for the views of
& reliability professionals
Triggers: Part 1
hen it rains, it pours. At least that's
what happened with April's Reader
Panel questions. They triggered an
outpouring of responses-including
several extremely detailed ones. In fact, we received
so many thoughtful replies that, to fit them in, we'll
need to run them over two months. The questions
we asked were:
1. What triggers our panelists' maintenance
scheduling, or if they are consultants or industry
suppliers, that of their client(s) or customer(s)?
Sensors? OEM recommendations? Daily walks/
PdM tool data? Word of mouth? A combination?
2. Which approaches work best for them, and why,
and vice versa?
3. Would panelists (or their clients or customers)
want to change their current maintenancescheduling process(es), and could they? If so,
what would they do?
As always, we've edited this first wave of responses
for brevity and clarity.
"To me, a combination of
is best, but that requires a very
dedicated planner who really
understands how the world works."
Process Industries, Canada...
We use a combination of approaches. We have
maintenance [personnel] and operators that use
handheld devices with routes for regular inspections. Data is uploaded and emails are automatically sent out. Benchmark work orders in our
CMMS are set to generate area-shut/routine work.
We also have completed most of the areas on RCM.
There's still work to do to get PM work orders in the
system, but that's a continuous work in progress.
The handhelds are great if the operators/
maintenance guys give us the correct information.
The downside is the handhelds typically add to the
huge list of emails that not everyone can read and
some things fall through the cracks, i.e., minimum
manning/new planners, and supervisors' inexperience. [Other things that work well include] identifying critical assets, looking at types of failures most
likely to happen, determining inspection frequency,
and then "training the guys out in the field on what
to look for." Training on the sense and meaning
of what can go wrong and what that looks like is
critical for getting good data to act on.
Currently, work orders that are being generated
are "go look at stuff "-they don't identify or convey
what should be getting done. A review of basic PMs
needs to be done, as should a site/area audit to look
at what is actually being inspected.
[I would recommend] providing some instruction for the operators and maintenance staff on the
sense and meaning behind the PM program and
ensuring there is feedback with follow-up discussions when reports coming in.
Discrete Manufacturing, Midwest...
Our main scheduling is actually handled by our PM
coordinators-who do an outstanding job handling
several hundred machines per plant. Each one of
our plants has a PM coordinator. If I had to choose
a main trigger, it would be sensors. Our Maximo
system also sets off triggers if we find an abnormality on a machine. Scheduling is generally [based
on] an annual, semi-annual, or quarterly check on
the machines. In our departments, we have multiple
sets of machines, so we're really doing one PM after
another from cell to cell.
I really can't say that our system has one
approach that works better than the other. The
biggest obstacles we run into are machines not
being released from production to do the work.
The only thing that will correct that problem in
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Maintenance Technology April 2016
On The Floor
Culture Changed At This Indiana Refinery
She Ignores The Glass Ceiling
Loadability Studies Aid PRC-025-1 Compliance
Look System-Wide For Cost Savings
Reliable Pumping Supplement
Fund Lubrication Program With Energy Savings
Infrared Safety Tips
Internet Of Things
Motor-Testing Tools Expand Services
Maintenance Technology April 2016