results from optimized asset reliability

Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

Results from Optimized Reliability

Presented by: Ricky Smith, CMRP February 2013


“A Proactive Reliability Process is a supply chain. If a step in the process is skipped, or performed at a substandard level, the process creates defects known as failures. The output of a healthy reliability process is optimal asset reliability at optimal cost.”

― Ron Thomas, former Reliability Director, Dofasco Steel, Hamilton, ON

Presenter

Presentation Notes

I learned from one of the masters of Reliability at Dofasco, Ron Thomas Sr Reliability Practitioner, who would sum up our presentation with this statement: The Proactive Asset Reliability Process is a supply chain. If a step in the process is skipped, or performed at a substandard level, the process creates defects known as failures. The output of a healthy reliability process is optimal asset reliability at optimal cost.


Maintenance

• To Maintain • Preserve, and Protect from Degradation • Maintain Asset Reliability


Reliability

Meeting the functional requirements of the end user


Reactive Maintenance Attributes

• Ineffective or No Planning and Scheduling • PM Compliance has a wide variance • Performing PM on Equipment that continues to breakdown • Overnight deliveries sit for weeks, months • Everyone works as hard as they can with little if any

movement seen toward proactive • Storeroom is Chaos (people standing in line at 7:00am

waiting on parts) • Contractor replacing equipment with no one validating if the

defect was eliminated or work was completed accurately


Variation is Your Enemy - Causes

• No Repeatable/Effective Procedures • Lack of Discipline in maintenance execution • The wrong maintenance approach to reliability • Production not operating the equipment to standard • PM Compliance is Too Wide • Doing Too Much PM • No standards or specifications


Dr. Deming:

“Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results you are getting.”

7

05

101520253035404550556065707580

Hou

rs

Electric Motors – Plant Wide (Mean Time Between Failures)


World Class Standards – Where are you? • PM Execution – 15% • PM Results – 15% • PdM Execution – 15% • PdM Results – 35% • Total Work “Planned” – 90% • Reactive Work – Less than 2% • Stock-outs – less than 2% • Scheduled compliance by day/week – 85 to 90% • Failure Elimination is a key focus of all (FRACAS) • Work orders are closed out with ALL Codes ID


Alcoa Mt Holly vs. World Class Standards


Cost Comparison of Maintenance Programs

Source: EPRI Power Generation Study

Run to Failure

Preventive Predictive Precision

Main

tena

nce C

ost

($ p

er H

orse

powe

r)


Safety and Reliability

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 28 33 37 41 45 48 53

15

35

55

75

95

115

135

Month

OEE

(% o

f Bas

e)

Inju

ry R

ate

(% o

f Bas

e)

Source: The RM Group, Knoxville, TN

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

OEE Injury Rate


Maintenance Costs vs. Vibration Analysis

Source: John Schultz, RM Group

Source: 1997 Benchmarking Study in Chemical Processing industry, John Schultz to be featured in Ron Moore’s new book What Tool? When? Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Strategies and Tools

Main

tena

nce C

osts

($) %

RAV

Vibration Analysis (%)


Maintenance Costs vs. Equipment on PM

Source: John Schultz, RM Group

Equipment on PM (%) Source: 1997 Benchmarking Study in Chemical Processing industry, John Schultz to be featured in Ron Moore’s new book What Tool? When? Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Strategies and Tools

Main

tena

nce C

osts

($) %

RAV


Why does it all matter?


Maintenance Cost % of RAV


Questions/Comments?

results from optimized asset reliability

Documents