Paper360 - July/August 2015 - (Page 22)
It's hard to beat experience. In this and future issues of Paper 360° we will pass along more insights of Jay Shellogg
and other experienced M&R individuals.
From Reactive to Proactive
My experience has taught me that
most folks working in the pulp and paper
industry don't have an understanding of
what it takes to change a reactive maintenance department to a proactive and reliable
one. Two key areas must be addressed for
reliability to take root and be sustainable:
mill culture and the principles of reliability.
I once had dinner with the a paper
machine production manager where we
talked about the need to change from a reactive maintenance culture to one that engaged
the entire organization in proactive reliability - from the mill manager to the janitor. I
told him that any real culture change takes
planning, time and commitment. But he
pushed back and said, "We don't have time,
we have to change now."
I empathized with him, but asked if he
had ever experienced an effort at a mill to
install a new way of doing things where the
champion of the change - by either position, character or force of will - made the
change happen, only to see the organization
revert back to its old ways when the champion left or was reassigned? The production manager grew frustrated and finally
excused himself from dinner.
The next day I was at the mill for a
tour and the place was in turmoil from a
breakdown overnight. Mid-morning I was
summoned to the production manager's
office, where I found him exhausted from
the breakdown and frustrated by my comments from the night before. I braced for a
verbal assault, but to my surprise he said,
"After I left our dinner, I thought about your
question. I was that champion of change in
the last three mills where I worked, and in
every case, after I left, those mills returned
to their old ways. I don't want that to happen
here." We then had a very productive discussion about culture change management and
the steps required to bring it about.
Some of the things I have learned from my
years in a mill (many obvious) are:
Paper360º JULY/AUGUST 2015
"The human senses are
capable of detecting
about 80 percent of
failed states, and often
human senses are all
that are needed to detect
* About 80 percent of equipment failures
occur randomly with respect to age of
* Most equipment failures follow a degradation curve known as the P-F interval.
* The human senses are capable of detecting about 80 percent of failed states,
and often human senses are all that are
needed to detect equipment problems.
* The people who work closest to failing
equipment are the subject matter experts
(SME) on that equipment.
* Data is not required in order to begin
reliability work, only the SME knowledge.
* It is vital to take into account how a failure affects safety, environment, quality
and/or production, and under no circumstance allow consequence of failure to
determine frequency of inspection.
* As risk is inherent in everything we do, we
must define what level of risk is tolerable.
* We must understand what our equipment
"can" do vs. what we "want" it to do.
* Failure modes (root causes of failure)
occur in three ways: suddenly, over a
period of time and hidden.
Jay Shellogg spent the last 16 years of his career
working at a large pulp and paper mill, primarily as a senior environmental engineer
and maintenance/reliability superintendent. During that time he encountered many
challenges that in his own words, "some I overcame and some I didn't." Contact Jay Shellogg
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Paper360 - July/August 2015
Over the Wire
Root Cause Problem Elimination…or Only Analysis?
Steam Profiler Gets New Lease on Life
From Reactive to Proactive
TAPPI Journal Summaries
Kemira Expands its Global Business and Humanitarian Reach
PEERS Offers Opportunities for Optimization
Index of Advertisers
Paper360 - July/August 2015