Numerous experts report the undeniable absolute necessity of management conviction and dedication for reliability efforts to result in a proper and sustained “field” (that would be the plant floor) implementation. No argument could possibly otherwise convince us or our readers. We agree on something.
Why then do we see a generalized backtracking to antiquated methods or unwitting feeble returns from reliability approaches? Where is this management commitment when reports from the field indicate reliable methods get implemented and then seem to vanish into thin air or quickly get set aside? Why is apparent regression almost inevitable?
What some may fail to mention is the capital importance of fundamentals. And these essentials may escape most of the “business model improvement” proponents due to a simple and quite ugly fact: the “business” people rarely speak with the technical personnel who get the maintenance train on track and keep it there. And when they do, as they are often used to speaking very different languages, these parties may have limited exchanges or communications due to the different focus or interests they manifest.
The communication gap may be further aggravated by a largely false perception in head offices that the technical people remain uneducated. Nowadays, their credentials and pertinent experience may even at times exceed those of decision makers. This is not to criticize anyone: the preceding merely attempts to state occasionally occurring (and previously encountered) circumstances.
The predictive maintenance and condition-based approach to maintenance and reliability are vital to success. Yet, these facets of maintenance and engineering have been in place for some time, with often poor to moderate results (the author is being kind; so many PdM or CBM programs are hobbled structurally and technically that their returns can only be qualified as hobbled). The promise of fabulous returns can not be met when the program is not “fed” properly: investment, education (training at ALL levels) and sensible recognition of efforts, to name but a few factors too often missing from the final recipe…
What makes you think that doing the same thing in the same way will now yield a better result? What will now be done to properly adjust the targeting? The liabilities (or problems) and personnel are the same. Or personnel keeps changing in turnstile-mode.
Of course, critics might glumly reply “Have you not been part of the system that created the ineffectiveness we must now endure?”, a pertinent albeit biased question. We propose a viable working platform or product to our clients. We might express it as “we sell a car”. The client then plays pick and choose, dismantling the platform to purchase (allegorically) the two left-side wheels, one rear bumper, and parts of the engine, instead of buying the whole functional vehicle. The reasons are many and they feel justified in this purchasing approach: they already have two right-side wheels (of a different size), one bumper and engine parts (likely mixing centimeters and inches), so they feel they can reassemble a working whole. The truth seems to point to “wishful thinking”.
An example? Some years back as I instructed a Vibration Analysis 1 course for one of the main vendors in our field of endeavor, two technicians showed up from an automotive parts manufacturing plant. They expressed their concerns relative to the course, having discussed with their supervisor what they felt was their need for training (they would have been more comfortable with an introductory course instead of the one they were now to attend). I assured them of my availability over lunch and after regular hours should they face serious hurdles, and also told them I ran a very open classroom where questions were welcome at any time. This can be helpful, but if fear of ridicule and timidity become the governing concern of the puzzled, our best efforts to remain available yield little in the way of improved comprehension. At any rate, they never availed themselves of the repeatedly tendered “extra” support or semi-private sessions.
Most Level 1 courses clearly state a need for 6 months prior experience and/or having attended an introductory class. These two participants were lacking in both respects. Net result: come evaluation time, these two felt that the vendor offering this training was only interested in revenue and they never should have been “allowed” to attend that course.
Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Ours would differ slightly: in the hopes of saving some training dollars, their supervisor sent these participants to a course that was above their current reach. In so doing, he wasted more training dollars than he saved. He also exposed his technicians to a little discouragement, and lower motivation due to perceived difficulties.
Could the problem have been resolved right then and there by using a different approach? Course contents did not lend itself to a quick readjustment: other participants quite liked that course and got what they came for, but then, they had the necessary bases to absorb the curriculum.
To the previous example, we should also add the unpopularity of introductory courses in certain areas of the world. The “client” (purchasing or management) feel them to be a reach for more $$$, when in fact, the participant get swamped with too much material when attending the “chosen” (not by them) higher-level course.
Worse yet, in those same areas, when a certification exam is faced at the end of a week’s training, some participants have at times been warned that failure would equate dismissal. Sitting (or writing) an exam that is meant to cull the untrained may dauntingly challenge the neophyte.
Another sad hurdle to reliability excellence remains the discrepancy in pay rate and benefits afforded those who practice it adequately. Sooner or later, if competent technical personnel find they may be given better opportunities elsewhere, they will jump ship and seek out better climes. There are management or HR theories about pay scales and bonuses (this writer will purposely stay away from them as readers might be offended by psychological aspects of remuneration), but an occasional carrot, such as two checks waiting in the wings (gold and silver medals, if you wish) might yield surprising competitive benefits. Or setting PdM program goals and tying a bonus to meeting those targets.
Proactive engineering steps used hand in hand with precision maintenance yield better reliability. The latter is undeniable. Yet, without a strong predictive program, above and beyond any scheduled preventive replacements (likely arising from an RCM study) and inspections, production and asset reliability will remain out of reach.
PdM / CBM or Condition-Monitoring ARE the technical foundation that can be encouraged, but not managed at any level other than that of maintenance and engineering. In other words, if reliability is a fortification against trouble and decay and a guarantee of productivity, the walls or battlements depend on solid groundwork called predictive maintenance.
Simply put, Asset Reliability (and maintenance) can not be driven by failure-detection if predictive efforts remain incapable of perceiving faults.
© 2008 by François Gagnon