Last week I discussed and posted a scenario which many, as identified in some of the responses, have seen. I asked for potential solutions to the problem. It was considered significant an issue throughout industry that it was rebroadcast on numerous discussion groups. To answer one question I was asked via email – no, it was not my company.
The responses ranged from: 1) you must do more training, so hire my training company; 2) I am a consultant with a secret magic bullet, so call me so I can sell you on hiring me; 3) you don’t need CMMS or measures on maintenance; 4) big brother is watching; 5) lack of leadership; and many more conclusions and anecdotes.
What disturbed me the most was the volume of discussion about ‘what to do’ or ‘hire me,’ but very little substance. I was hoping for someone, anyone, to try to handle this as a problem and apply some of our reliability tools. Only one did; a practitioner who suggested that a solution cannot be given until root causes are determined. He was immediately put upon by the consulting regime. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have already determined the problem in the scenario, management, without a view of the complete picture.
If a marketing, sales, accounting or production person approached a company executive, or a company executive approached one of these departments, because it wasn’t functioning, should the company executive first have to train the department on why they should be performing their function? Or, should the executive feel comfortable that they understand what and why they are doing/performing their functions and that there is some other issue in play?
One set of comments I found particularly disturbing related to the case of a CMMS system. Not the ‘big brother’ statements, those are relatively understandable, but the concept that CMMS is not needed! The idea was that you should not have to track maintenance performance, take it as a given, and provide maintenance with all the resources they request, no questions asked. This truly blew my mind, and not in a positive way. The concepts of needs and gap analysis were good, but, again, suggestions that nothing should happen until then.
Why would management want to have a CMMS in place (there are more reasons, here are a few)?
a) Measurement of resources and to track KPI (you cannot manage what you cannot measure);
b) Ensure maintenance is being performed on the correct equipment (tool for maintenance manager);
c) As a tool to track maintenance issues and repetitive equipment failures: and,
d) Determine asset end of life and as a tool to assist with maintenance program improvement.
Throughout the comments it was suggested that management should reach out and educate/communicate with maintenance. At the same time, maintenance personnel at conferences have been screaming out for help in communicating with senior management.
So, what is the answer? Should the captain of the ship come down to the engine room to show the maintenance man why he is turning the wrench? Or, should that executive be more concerned with the heading and destination secure in the knowledge that the ship is functioning? Personally, if the captain has to come down from the bridge to direct a ship’s function, then something is seriously wrong!
One of the suggestions was that management had to somehow learn change management. The argument I put forth is that management already knows change management. A company does not survive long if an executive will not change and flow with conditions. Instead I submit, as in the sample last week, that the issue will tend to reside in the individuals directly affected by the changes. In this case, the maintenance organization was resisting changes that would be beneficial to them in both the short and long term.
For one thing, maintenance was complaining that they did not have enough resources. However, there was no evidence to that effect. All management knew is that equipment was failing with no evidence of maintenance being performed. Next, it was noted that maintenance personnel were being used for non-maintenance errands, but to what extent was unknown. So, if there is no evidence of maintenance being performed and maintenance personnel are being used for non-maintenance tasks, then perhaps there are enough resources, but they are not being effectively utilized? Tracking time on functions and wrench time would be an effective way of ensuring proper use of an asset, wouldn’t it?
Without evidence of maintenance being performed, equipment failing, and maintenance staff being used for non-maintenance tasks, the ‘not enough resources’ sounds like an excuse. What if accounting was not sending invoices and processing receivables, but instead they were out doing grounds keeping? Would that be an effective use of their time? There are measurements in place to track the effectiveness of accounting, as well as other departments.
So, what makes maintenance different than any other function of the company? I believe it is no more or less than any other function, or else it wouldn’t exist. So, as a valuable asset of the company, it must be managed and must be tied to the company strategy. This was noted in a comment that somehow maintenance was not a ‘value added’ part of the company with the person making the statement suggesting that maintenance has no impact on the bottom line. My opinion is supported, of course, that maintenance is value added as it has a direct impact on the cost to manufacture and quality of product. This is well known to experienced managers.
In times when executives are faced with having to lean their companies, make cutbacks, fine-tune functions, why should, or would, they throw resources at a dysfunctional program? Or, if they cannot see a justification for a program, why shouldn’t they cut it? Things are breaking anyways and there is no evidence that maintenance is being performed.
Is there a good solution to the problem? Perhaps multiple solutions?
Because right now, if an executive were to approach our industry and say, ‘what do I do?’ and they receive the answers I did? They would either kill the program, wipe it out and start over, or throw their hands up and let things continue dysfunctionally.
One of the things I have noted over the years is a very definite lack of a clear message to corporate executives in relation to how to get things going, what the impact is on our industry, etc. Instead, I see a bunch of stuff thrown at them to see what sticks.
I do note that I see the types of organizations that approached me trying to sell me their ‘silver bullet,’ most of which had absolutely nothing to do with the scenario, as a HUGE PART OF THE PROBLEM! When an overworked executive has wave after wave of confusing information thrown at them, most will do the smart thing and walk away. Me, I just make fun of the snake oil salesmen. Unfortunately, enough fall for the crap and see that it does not work and have a bad taste in their mouth for future endeavors and the R&M community. I have heard so many comments from managers to that effect that it makes me sick! But at least the scum made a few dollars while kicking our industry in the teeth.
Yep, if you just got your hair up over that, I am talking about you.
For the rest of us, one of the biggest challenges I have seen is the communication gap between our industry and corporate executives. Our message seems to be more inward with people selling to the choir instead of supporting the community and coming up with a common message on getting things started. Thank goodness for organizations like SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals) who have been working hard at educating, communicating and standardizing such items as KPIs (http://www.smrp.org).
How would you communicate with corporate executives about the value of our community to the organization? How would you identify What’s In It For Me (WIIFM) for the executive?
I really suggest that you don’t try to sell me on your latest snake oil, if you were thinking about it. I WILL make fun of you. Honest professionals making suggestions, that is another matter and I strongly welcome your comments.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Maintenance Staff Resistance to Maintenance Program?
Recently I attended a meeting where management was strongly supporting the development of a maintenance program. Everyone from the CEO to most levels and areas of the company recognized the impact of a poor program due to some recent events. A relatively simple CMMS program was in place, some equipment was missing from the database, and the maintenance steps within the CMMS were non-existent (lacked detail). It was well known that the maintenance staff was busy, but the CMMS remained unused and most issues appeared to be firefighting and reactive. Maintenance staff were used for non-maintenance tasks and errands for operations.
With several significant issues impacting production, senior staff were trying to get a handle on the issue. It was determined that the planned maintenance and CMMS should be put in place as a tactical step to meet specific strategic corporate goals. The result was an issue that I have seen time and time again. In my position, which is now mostly on the executive and operations side of the business again, I observed with the managers’ point of view in mind.
Senior management, operations management, maintenance management, and maintenance supervision were in attendance. The senior manager pointed out that there had been requests for more resources in maintenance, but it had also been noticed that there were no measures related to identification of work performed. It was known that a rudimentary program had been started a number of years in the past, which had been discontinued. There was not doubt that work was being done, but no way of determining effective use of time, energy and resources. Older equipment was failing and records were spotty on how many failures and what general condition equipment was in. It was admitted that several attempts had been made but unsupported, and that the program was going to be restarted and supported.
The maintenance managers identified a lack of support in the past and that the system was not fully updated, implying that more work needed to be done before starting. Senior management assured that things had progressed (or regressed) and that there were additional pressures for the implementation of the program that were tied to the corporate strategy.
Maintenance supervisors were upset that there would be paperwork that would slow them down. They felt that what they really needed was more people and started listing their tasks, which included numerous tasks not associated with maintenance. Managements’ position was that they could not expand a broken program without measures and an understandable view of how time and resources were being utilized.
Operations was fairly neutral, appeared to support the program and made positive suggestions. From this discussion, a basic outline for kick-starting the program with the understanding that gradual improvements would be made was developed. Overall, the maintenance organization held the attitude that this didn’t work before, why should it work now, and management appeared to be frustrated that their efforts to support the maintenance program was falling on a broken organization.
In all, I was able to see both sides. I have seen it numerous times in organizations large and small. The end result varies based on where the strength of personalities lay than even a clear-cut, common sense program.
In the reliability and maintenance community we often ask, as I have heard time and time again in conferences, private conversations, and articles: “why won’t management listen to us?” or, “they don’t get it!”
What happens when:
1) Corporate management ‘gets it;’
2) Operations is neutral but supportive;
3) Walls, resistance, and demands are put in place by the maintenance organization even with management supporting the program?
How would you approach this situation?
With several significant issues impacting production, senior staff were trying to get a handle on the issue. It was determined that the planned maintenance and CMMS should be put in place as a tactical step to meet specific strategic corporate goals. The result was an issue that I have seen time and time again. In my position, which is now mostly on the executive and operations side of the business again, I observed with the managers’ point of view in mind.
Senior management, operations management, maintenance management, and maintenance supervision were in attendance. The senior manager pointed out that there had been requests for more resources in maintenance, but it had also been noticed that there were no measures related to identification of work performed. It was known that a rudimentary program had been started a number of years in the past, which had been discontinued. There was not doubt that work was being done, but no way of determining effective use of time, energy and resources. Older equipment was failing and records were spotty on how many failures and what general condition equipment was in. It was admitted that several attempts had been made but unsupported, and that the program was going to be restarted and supported.
The maintenance managers identified a lack of support in the past and that the system was not fully updated, implying that more work needed to be done before starting. Senior management assured that things had progressed (or regressed) and that there were additional pressures for the implementation of the program that were tied to the corporate strategy.
Maintenance supervisors were upset that there would be paperwork that would slow them down. They felt that what they really needed was more people and started listing their tasks, which included numerous tasks not associated with maintenance. Managements’ position was that they could not expand a broken program without measures and an understandable view of how time and resources were being utilized.
Operations was fairly neutral, appeared to support the program and made positive suggestions. From this discussion, a basic outline for kick-starting the program with the understanding that gradual improvements would be made was developed. Overall, the maintenance organization held the attitude that this didn’t work before, why should it work now, and management appeared to be frustrated that their efforts to support the maintenance program was falling on a broken organization.
In all, I was able to see both sides. I have seen it numerous times in organizations large and small. The end result varies based on where the strength of personalities lay than even a clear-cut, common sense program.
In the reliability and maintenance community we often ask, as I have heard time and time again in conferences, private conversations, and articles: “why won’t management listen to us?” or, “they don’t get it!”
What happens when:
1) Corporate management ‘gets it;’
2) Operations is neutral but supportive;
3) Walls, resistance, and demands are put in place by the maintenance organization even with management supporting the program?
How would you approach this situation?
Friday, January 28, 2011
On Technical Training
An area that is often wanted but also takes a back seat to other areas when things get a little tough is training. I have noted over the years that some managers even become concerned with the training process and have stated, "why train them when they might leave to get a job somewhere else." I have always thought, when I have heard such statements, that these managers lack vision and are relatively short sighted. In other cases, I hear that training is not a necessary function and 'gets in the way.' Again, a short sighted view showing reactive management versus strategic or tactical thinking.
The purpose of a proper training program is to meet the needs of the organization, have an impact on the bottom line, improve morale, and meet regulatory and customer requirements. You can evaluate a successful program by noting operational or functional successes of the organization and personnel. If the training program is ineffective, you do not identify changes in the organization, which requires review and improvement.
To understand the program, you must identify the basic makeup of the training organization. The highest level consists of five elements which make up the training strategy:
1. Management is the function of directing and controlling needs assessments;
2. Support is the function of maintaining all parts of the system;
3. Administration is the function of day to day processing and record keeping;
4. Delivery is the function of providing instruction to students; and,
5. Evaluation is the function of gathering feedback data through formative, summative, and operational evaluation.
The key to any successful training program is the identification of the gaps of knowledge within the organization through needs assessment. An effective program identifies those needs and then develops the training around it. The basic organization for the tactical application of the training program also consists of five components:
1. Analysis is the process used to identify critical tasks and identify the standards, conditions, performance measures and other criteria needed to perform each task. Training is based upon the tasks identified in the analysis and the results form the basis for that training. The analysis includes evaluating the gap through an understanding of the existing knowledge level and job/task descriptions and where personnel exist.
2. The instructional design is based on the analysis phase and is the point where the designers develop learning objectives, test strategy, test items, as well as high level design of the training. The instructional designer determines the strategies to be used and selects the instructional method and media. Existing materials and raw media may be reviewed in order to determine their applicability to the specific instruction under development. At this point, the implementation plan is also developed.
3. The instructional development is based on the design phase and is where the lesson materials, exercises, drills, and other instructional materials for both the student and instructor are developed. The media selected in the design phase is produced and all materials are developed.
4. After the instructional system has been designed and developed, the validation and evaluation have been completed, then the instructional program may be fielded in the implementation phase.
5. Evaluation is a continuous process that starts during the needs analysis and continues throughout the development and life cycle of the instructional system. Feedback from the evaluation process is used to modify the training program as necessary. To ensure continuing quality of the fielded training, operational evaluations consisting of both internal (classroom) and external (field/operations) evaluations provide the necessary feedback.
There is, of course, a great deal more involved in the training program, such as records requirements, regulatory requirements, etc. For instance, maintaining safety training records becomes vital in order to meet OSHA requirements. In all cases, the real development of the program by understanding the organization's needs is vital to the success of the organization.
The purpose of a proper training program is to meet the needs of the organization, have an impact on the bottom line, improve morale, and meet regulatory and customer requirements. You can evaluate a successful program by noting operational or functional successes of the organization and personnel. If the training program is ineffective, you do not identify changes in the organization, which requires review and improvement.
To understand the program, you must identify the basic makeup of the training organization. The highest level consists of five elements which make up the training strategy:
1. Management is the function of directing and controlling needs assessments;
2. Support is the function of maintaining all parts of the system;
3. Administration is the function of day to day processing and record keeping;
4. Delivery is the function of providing instruction to students; and,
5. Evaluation is the function of gathering feedback data through formative, summative, and operational evaluation.
The key to any successful training program is the identification of the gaps of knowledge within the organization through needs assessment. An effective program identifies those needs and then develops the training around it. The basic organization for the tactical application of the training program also consists of five components:
1. Analysis is the process used to identify critical tasks and identify the standards, conditions, performance measures and other criteria needed to perform each task. Training is based upon the tasks identified in the analysis and the results form the basis for that training. The analysis includes evaluating the gap through an understanding of the existing knowledge level and job/task descriptions and where personnel exist.
2. The instructional design is based on the analysis phase and is the point where the designers develop learning objectives, test strategy, test items, as well as high level design of the training. The instructional designer determines the strategies to be used and selects the instructional method and media. Existing materials and raw media may be reviewed in order to determine their applicability to the specific instruction under development. At this point, the implementation plan is also developed.
3. The instructional development is based on the design phase and is where the lesson materials, exercises, drills, and other instructional materials for both the student and instructor are developed. The media selected in the design phase is produced and all materials are developed.
4. After the instructional system has been designed and developed, the validation and evaluation have been completed, then the instructional program may be fielded in the implementation phase.
5. Evaluation is a continuous process that starts during the needs analysis and continues throughout the development and life cycle of the instructional system. Feedback from the evaluation process is used to modify the training program as necessary. To ensure continuing quality of the fielded training, operational evaluations consisting of both internal (classroom) and external (field/operations) evaluations provide the necessary feedback.
There is, of course, a great deal more involved in the training program, such as records requirements, regulatory requirements, etc. For instance, maintaining safety training records becomes vital in order to meet OSHA requirements. In all cases, the real development of the program by understanding the organization's needs is vital to the success of the organization.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year! Now is the time for planning 2011. I have to say that things definitely appear ‘up.’ I remember at the end of 2009 watching book sales a little down around the holidays. Definitely not the case this year! Not to mention consulting work which I do along with my other duties at Dreisilker. Definitely on the rise. Our techs have spent quite a bit of time visiting locations internationally and have been working with a significant increase in electrical forensic analysis. Which means, by the way, we have been expanding and growing.
My main resolution this year is to get back into more writing. I have been doing a lot of hands-on research this year, in addition to everything else, along with co-workers and co-conspiritors (alright, researchers) on a large number of projects. It is about time to start releasing the findings. It has also been more than a year since I put out my last book. So, this year my intention is to get out another book expanding on the topics of the MotorDoc series. I will discuss more as we get closer to a publishing date and it will be another textbook. The project has been very exciting!
The Reliability Gives Voice to Autism program has been our way of giving back to the community. This year we are including a book awards program and some of the entries are outstanding and all are great! We plan on releasing the contenders list about 30 days ahead of the RGVA 2011 and will announce the winners and special categories during the event. The whole program has been given a fair amount of attention within the autism community and by other autism support organizations.
I am happy to say, also, that the Autism Society, Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, and IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society memberships are up a lot and growing, all at historical levels! Another sign that all things are on the rise.
Again, Happy New Year! It is our wish that you have a great new year and that our industry continues to grow!
My main resolution this year is to get back into more writing. I have been doing a lot of hands-on research this year, in addition to everything else, along with co-workers and co-conspiritors (alright, researchers) on a large number of projects. It is about time to start releasing the findings. It has also been more than a year since I put out my last book. So, this year my intention is to get out another book expanding on the topics of the MotorDoc series. I will discuss more as we get closer to a publishing date and it will be another textbook. The project has been very exciting!
The Reliability Gives Voice to Autism program has been our way of giving back to the community. This year we are including a book awards program and some of the entries are outstanding and all are great! We plan on releasing the contenders list about 30 days ahead of the RGVA 2011 and will announce the winners and special categories during the event. The whole program has been given a fair amount of attention within the autism community and by other autism support organizations.
I am happy to say, also, that the Autism Society, Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals, and IEEE Dielectrics and Electrical Insulation Society memberships are up a lot and growing, all at historical levels! Another sign that all things are on the rise.
Again, Happy New Year! It is our wish that you have a great new year and that our industry continues to grow!
Saturday, December 4, 2010
In this editorial: some stuff on business, SMRP, and electric motor industry stuff that will impact you and how you manage your motors!
On the road again! (now, that song will stick in your head) Travel can be interesting, in particular, both air and road travel. I am back to a significant amount of both at the moment. The good news is that the increase in travel and the types of related projects go along with the type of work that was seen prior to the economic downturn. Of course, suring this period, it is almost as if a reset button has been pushed and some new players have entered this scene.
Basically, layoffs and early retirements are noticeable in many of the business environments. New vaces have entered the scene, people are working leaner and companies have transitional out significant knowledge. We are noticing, however, that many of the newer people in the industry are a little more tech savvy using the internet and technology more to obtain and share information through social networking. There is an effort by a growing number of companies to become more involved in organizations such as SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals – http://www.SMRP.org) and local chapters, as well as hiring reliability engineers in order to develop optimized maintenance organizations.
The transition appears to be going relatively smoothly, moreso than many expected, even with fewer people. This goes along with similar transitions that occurred in the early 1900s, mid-1900s, and now. Social and business upheaval has not finished as unemployment remains high and inventories, in particular MRO inventory, is either kept very low or is non-existent. There is, or course, the issues that go along with lower production levels returning to normal levels and problems with machines that have either been operating at lower loads or on mothballs with limited maintenance.
A few new issues for the industry are looming on the horizon such as the EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) and the potential Crush for Credit program. Another issue that may impact the repair industry is the US EPA ruling on small incinerators (US Environmental Proection Agency 40 CFR Part 60: Standards for Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule) which will impact burn off ovens. This means that there is the potential for major changes in the electric motor manufacturing and repair industries.
The impact of the EISA is that the motors covered under the EPAct 92 (Energy Policy Act of 1992), which covered integral, foot mounted, general purpose 1200 to 3600 RPM motors from 1 to 250 horsepower, that were elevated to energy efficient levels by October 24, 1997, are now required to be manufactured (as of December 19, 2010) to premium efficient levels. Motors from over 250 horsepower to 500 horsepower are required to be energy efficient including U-frame and specialty motors that were previously not covered. This also means a cost premium on the motors that will change some of the repair versus replace decisions that many companies make.
If the Crush for Credit program is implemented, a $25 per horsepower incentive would be provided, as presently written, for upgrading existing motors to premium efficient motors. A $5 per horsepower credit would e provided to repair centers and mtoor sellers to scrap the existing machine. With present political issues, the program has been put on hold. However, the impact on the motor industry would be on the repair side where it is projected that motors to 500 or 1,000 horsepower would no longer be cost effective to repair. The impact would be significant to smaller repair facilities as it is expected to be extended across a four year period.
The EPA ruling on the small incinerators will effect motor repair facilities. In the present draft there will be a significant increase in costs to maintain ovens to reduce emissions and controls to ensure the emissions and materials do not exceed specific levels. The EPA explicitly states that the purpose is to make it cost prohibitive to operate burnout ovens due to negative impacts on environment and health (not just impacting workers but companies and homes within 1-2 miles). This would require these companies to explore other means of repair, such as mechanical stripping or water blasting, which have been shown to have near-zero impact on the environment and on changing motor efficiency.
The impact of motor efficiency through high temperature stripping has a long term effect on the motor owner where there is an increase in energy consumption (kW) that increases the greenhouse gas footprint of these companies. While tight quality control of the repair process will significantly reduce the impact, it will not eliminate it. However, processes such as mechanical stripping along with quality control and best repair practices have been proven to have no impact on motor efficiency.
NOTE: I have heard the – “but we were told there was a study in the UK that says burnout ovens have no impact on efficiency.” I would note that the same people involved in that study also pushed for the 20% allowable increase in core losses through the repair process in IEEE Std 1068-2009, “IEEE Standard for the Repair and Rewinding of AC Electric Motors in the Petroleum, Chemical, and Process Industries.” Core losses are an average of 25% of the losses in a motor meaning that, by definition, a 20% increase in cores losses relates to a significant increase in efficiency. See Plant Engineering article “Don’t Allow Motor Repair Practices to Degrade Motor Efficiency:” http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2010/12MotorRepairPractices.html?DCMP=PSE_Article_MotorRepair_101202
Basically, layoffs and early retirements are noticeable in many of the business environments. New vaces have entered the scene, people are working leaner and companies have transitional out significant knowledge. We are noticing, however, that many of the newer people in the industry are a little more tech savvy using the internet and technology more to obtain and share information through social networking. There is an effort by a growing number of companies to become more involved in organizations such as SMRP (Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals – http://www.SMRP.org) and local chapters, as well as hiring reliability engineers in order to develop optimized maintenance organizations.
The transition appears to be going relatively smoothly, moreso than many expected, even with fewer people. This goes along with similar transitions that occurred in the early 1900s, mid-1900s, and now. Social and business upheaval has not finished as unemployment remains high and inventories, in particular MRO inventory, is either kept very low or is non-existent. There is, or course, the issues that go along with lower production levels returning to normal levels and problems with machines that have either been operating at lower loads or on mothballs with limited maintenance.
A few new issues for the industry are looming on the horizon such as the EISA (Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) and the potential Crush for Credit program. Another issue that may impact the repair industry is the US EPA ruling on small incinerators (US Environmental Proection Agency 40 CFR Part 60: Standards for Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Proposed Rule) which will impact burn off ovens. This means that there is the potential for major changes in the electric motor manufacturing and repair industries.
The impact of the EISA is that the motors covered under the EPAct 92 (Energy Policy Act of 1992), which covered integral, foot mounted, general purpose 1200 to 3600 RPM motors from 1 to 250 horsepower, that were elevated to energy efficient levels by October 24, 1997, are now required to be manufactured (as of December 19, 2010) to premium efficient levels. Motors from over 250 horsepower to 500 horsepower are required to be energy efficient including U-frame and specialty motors that were previously not covered. This also means a cost premium on the motors that will change some of the repair versus replace decisions that many companies make.
If the Crush for Credit program is implemented, a $25 per horsepower incentive would be provided, as presently written, for upgrading existing motors to premium efficient motors. A $5 per horsepower credit would e provided to repair centers and mtoor sellers to scrap the existing machine. With present political issues, the program has been put on hold. However, the impact on the motor industry would be on the repair side where it is projected that motors to 500 or 1,000 horsepower would no longer be cost effective to repair. The impact would be significant to smaller repair facilities as it is expected to be extended across a four year period.
The EPA ruling on the small incinerators will effect motor repair facilities. In the present draft there will be a significant increase in costs to maintain ovens to reduce emissions and controls to ensure the emissions and materials do not exceed specific levels. The EPA explicitly states that the purpose is to make it cost prohibitive to operate burnout ovens due to negative impacts on environment and health (not just impacting workers but companies and homes within 1-2 miles). This would require these companies to explore other means of repair, such as mechanical stripping or water blasting, which have been shown to have near-zero impact on the environment and on changing motor efficiency.
The impact of motor efficiency through high temperature stripping has a long term effect on the motor owner where there is an increase in energy consumption (kW) that increases the greenhouse gas footprint of these companies. While tight quality control of the repair process will significantly reduce the impact, it will not eliminate it. However, processes such as mechanical stripping along with quality control and best repair practices have been proven to have no impact on motor efficiency.
NOTE: I have heard the – “but we were told there was a study in the UK that says burnout ovens have no impact on efficiency.” I would note that the same people involved in that study also pushed for the 20% allowable increase in core losses through the repair process in IEEE Std 1068-2009, “IEEE Standard for the Repair and Rewinding of AC Electric Motors in the Petroleum, Chemical, and Process Industries.” Core losses are an average of 25% of the losses in a motor meaning that, by definition, a 20% increase in cores losses relates to a significant increase in efficiency. See Plant Engineering article “Don’t Allow Motor Repair Practices to Degrade Motor Efficiency:” http://www.plantservices.com/articles/2010/12MotorRepairPractices.html?DCMP=PSE_Article_MotorRepair_101202
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Part 2: Reactive and Run to Failure Strategies
The terms run to failure and reactive maintenance are often, incorrectly, used interchangeably. The concept of reactive maintenance is to run equipment until if fails and then figure out how to repair, replace or ignore it. This is the prevalent maintenance practice which has significant impact on business profitability. On the other hand, RTF is a strategy which, when performed correctly, can manage assets with a reduced impact. While not as extensive or cost effective as a PdM or CBM program, the philosophy still requires planning and thought.
With highly critical equipment, the plan may be to apply a combination of planned and condition maintenance to reduce the risk of failure. The remaining equipment is often left to fend for itself. This mistaken concept of twisting RCM and similar maintenance development tools has resulted in significant negative impact within industry. Less and non-critical equipment was not meant to be excluded from maintenance by these strategies, just a different level of application!
In an RTF program, the concept is to perform some methods of inspection, testing, maintaining, or other method that can identify that a problem is occurring such that action can be taken. This may be planning as part of an outage or staging parts and materials for when the failure occurs. The result is improved control of the repair related costs and improved inventory practices. In an environment where maintenance is being cut, or a full program for critical equipment does not exist, such a program can assist in assuring a higher state of readiness than just allowing equipment to fail. Who has not had the experience of going to find parts for equipment during a failure only to find the parts are obsolete?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
With highly critical equipment, the plan may be to apply a combination of planned and condition maintenance to reduce the risk of failure. The remaining equipment is often left to fend for itself. This mistaken concept of twisting RCM and similar maintenance development tools has resulted in significant negative impact within industry. Less and non-critical equipment was not meant to be excluded from maintenance by these strategies, just a different level of application!
In an RTF program, the concept is to perform some methods of inspection, testing, maintaining, or other method that can identify that a problem is occurring such that action can be taken. This may be planning as part of an outage or staging parts and materials for when the failure occurs. The result is improved control of the repair related costs and improved inventory practices. In an environment where maintenance is being cut, or a full program for critical equipment does not exist, such a program can assist in assuring a higher state of readiness than just allowing equipment to fail. Who has not had the experience of going to find parts for equipment during a failure only to find the parts are obsolete?
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Case for Reliability: Part 1
Starting in the latter part of the 20th Century companies focused in the reduction of inventory as part of their cost reduction strategy. Such product and MRO inventories were the result of internal and external bottlenecks and equipment maintenance. The primary strategy was, and still is, Run to Failure (RTF) and reactive maintenance. The challenge is that both RTF and reactive maintenance require spares inventories that can be significant. The reduction of maintenance and MRO inventory are mutually exclusive.
What started as intelligent modifications to inventory became dramatic change as the principles of industrial and reliability engineering became sloppier. In extreme cases, maintenance or operations personnel would order double of everything and hide the extra in workshops and toolboxes or the opposite where inventory would be stripped bare. Indications of MRO gone amok include spare parts hidden by personnel through the facility or significant amounts of repair work in-progress hidden through repair vendors. For instance: motors for repair at vendors with no decision until they are needed, then processed as urgent or emergency.
The status of the inventory in a reactive type program is also driven by the last significant emergency that drew senior management attention. Even when the fault would be a low future risk, a knee-jerk reaction exists and expensive spares or components are stocked taking up space and resources. In the past decade I have seen a dozen instances of the exact following case in commercial, industrial and government facilities world-wide: a failure some 20-30 years in the past of anelectric motor winding that had a significant impact and long repair time. A full set of windings or field coils is purchased and put into storage (almost always incorrectly stored). The winding fails 20-30 years later and the coils are pulled for use at the repair facility and the coils are found to be too aged or damaged for use.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
What started as intelligent modifications to inventory became dramatic change as the principles of industrial and reliability engineering became sloppier. In extreme cases, maintenance or operations personnel would order double of everything and hide the extra in workshops and toolboxes or the opposite where inventory would be stripped bare. Indications of MRO gone amok include spare parts hidden by personnel through the facility or significant amounts of repair work in-progress hidden through repair vendors. For instance: motors for repair at vendors with no decision until they are needed, then processed as urgent or emergency.
The status of the inventory in a reactive type program is also driven by the last significant emergency that drew senior management attention. Even when the fault would be a low future risk, a knee-jerk reaction exists and expensive spares or components are stocked taking up space and resources. In the past decade I have seen a dozen instances of the exact following case in commercial, industrial and government facilities world-wide: a failure some 20-30 years in the past of anelectric motor winding that had a significant impact and long repair time. A full set of windings or field coils is purchased and put into storage (almost always incorrectly stored). The winding fails 20-30 years later and the coils are pulled for use at the repair facility and the coils are found to be too aged or damaged for use.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
