ReliabilitySPOT is on temporary hiatus through July due to bereavement. As always, thank you for your readership but also your well wishes and understanding during this time. -Andy

CBM2010 – Condition Monitoring Summit June 8-11

I hope to see you down in beautiful Ft. Myers, Florida at the CBM2010 Condition Monitoring Summit, June 8-11.  The fine folks at Reliabiltyweb.com are hosting this learning event at their brand new facility: Reliability Performance Institute.

Reliabilityweb.com publisher Terrence O’Hanlon has informed me that this event is specifically geared toward entry-level maintenance and reliability managers and technicians interested in establishing a Condition Monitoring program at their site.  Presentations centered around the Predictive Maintenance Technologies will serve to clarify how these tools are utilized to effectively assess machinery health.  Town Hall style meetings each day will give each attendee the opportunity to share their experiences and/or receive answers to their most important CBM program implementation/execution questions.

Come join me as I look forward to meeting many of my ReliabilitySPOT subscribers in person at this event!  The Early Bird Rate with FREE Hotel ends today, so don’t delay! Click Here

Apollo 13: a Reliability Perspective – Part II

Have you ever wondered why movies were never made about Apollo 12 or 14?

In Part I, I focused upon the events that led up to the Apollo 13 “successful failure”.  In Part Two, let’s consider how dramatic failure episodes are not only generally accepted at some industrial facilities, but even celebrated in a Culture of Failure!

As folks watch the movie Apollo 13, they generally accept and do not question the fact that a catastrophic malfunction, or failure occurred. After all, it’s what we expect from Hollywood.  It wouldn’t have been much of a show if the mission had gone as planned now would it?  This is not unlike how many folks react when a critical system or component reaches functional failure in a manufacturing facility.

An event happens that “no one saw coming”, it shuts the place down and gets everyone’s attention.  Life is no longer boring!  “When will it come back up?  What can we do in the meantime?  Expedite those new parts and get them in here as soon as possible!  Can we mitigate?  What about work-arounds?  Can we rob Peter to pay Paul?  We need to do whatever it takes!”  (Did I hear someone say: “Failure is not an option?”)

Capable staff personnel scramble for resources.  They expedite parts or materials to have them made in-house or at a near-by job shop.  They pull together their most knowledgeable engineers and technicians. They acquire or fabricate special equipment and tools to get the job done more efficiently.  Key management personnel receive hourly updates.  The emergency response may go on through the night, or several days and nights until they eventually “save the day”.  This is generally regarded as extremely heroic as “the team really pulled together and went above and beyond the call of duty”.  As relief sets in, the heroes are celebrated, and the resulting hero-worship can be very gratifying!  The resulting attention can be a real boost to maintenance personnel morale, especially if they believe they are generally under-appreciated.  Before long, the maintenance organization begins to clearly understand its true purpose:  emergency breakdown repair.

A Culture of Failure eventually develops within the organization.  If they could hand out Oscars for failure response, they would. This culture places great value on the emergency response to functional failures and almost completely dismisses the notion that perhaps they didn’t need to happen in the first place.  Operations struggles to make schedule between breakdowns, and sometimes tries to run 24/7 to keep up.  Sequels are very popular and have proven to be very lucrative for Hollywood.  In the Culture of Failure, one doesn’t have to wait very long before the next Apollo 13 happens and the cycle repeats itself over and over.

This is so wrong.  Failures can be eliminated.  The consequences of failure can be avoided.  Technologies and processes can be applied to virtually any asset to significantly reduce the risk of failure. But for these to be put into practice, a significant culture change must take place:  The Culture of Failure must be transformed into The Culture of Success!

Make sure and subscribe to ReliabilitySPOT so that you don’t miss my next post:  Machinery Healthcare Reform.

Apollo 13: a Reliability Perspective – Part I

“A successful failure…”  This is how their infamous mission was summarized by Commander Jim Lovell.  Whether you are 27, 77,  or somewhere in-between, you are certainly familiar with the amazing story of the Apollo 13 mission.  I wanted to do my part to commemorate the 40th anniversary of this event by touching on a few points of interest.

First, as you can see by the crew photo (left), these brave men were not Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon and Bill Paxton. Hopefully this does not come as a shock to some of you! .  (Although I do know some folks who believe the moon landings were hoaxes!)

Second, the diligent efforts of the support personnel at Mission Control and the Kennedy Space Center were nothing short of heroic.  This episode in human history serves as a model to all of us who occasionally find ourselves in a tight spot; it truly was crisis management at its finest, ladies and gentlemen!  In the now famous words of Gene Krantz (played by Ed Harris in the Ron Howard epic): “Failure is not an option.”

He was of course referring to the rescue effort, but why did this “successful failure” happen in the first place?  As you probably know, Oxygen Tank #2 on board the Command Module exploded.  The explosion damaged Oxygen Tank #1, and crippled the spacecrafts ability to produce electrical power and breathing oxygen for the crew.  But like many catastrophic events, this one was caused by a series of mistakes.

Reuters Interview with Jim Lovell

It began 5 years earlier in 1965 with a breakdown in the Management of Change process. The manufacturer of the thermostat used to regulate temperature inside the oxygen tanks was not informed of a design change: the system voltage change from 28 to 65 volts.  NASA engineers had ordered all components be redesigned to operate at both voltages.  The next mistake occurred in 1969 at the facility that manufactured the tank itself.  The tank was dropped a distance of 2 inches during handling at the facility in California.  It was inspected, but deemed OK by technicians. (manufacturing process, acceptance testing mistakes).  In fact, the tank fill/empty tube was damaged.  A symptom of this problem became evident during a pre-launch test in March of 1970 when the tank could not be emptied.  NASA technicians worked around the problem by energizing the heater in the tank to change the liquid oxygen to a gas state.  This allowed the tank to empty, but energizing the thermostat caused it to fuse in the closed position.  The temperature in the tank then rose to 1000 degrees F, which damaged the stirring fan wiring insulation. These fans were used to stir the liquid oxygen to enable a more accurate quantity reading.  On the night of April 13, 1970,  the crew was instructed by Mission Control to “stir the tanks”.  The fans were energized, the damaged wires short-circuited which ignited the volatile liquid oxygen causing the tank to explode.

Make sure and subscribe to ReliabilitySPOT so that you don’t miss “the rest of the story”:  Apollo 13:  a Reliability Perspective – Part II

Cost Avoidance: Show Me the Money!

Previously in ReliabilitySPOT, I mentioned that KPIs can be used “to reaffirm the value of the maintenance and reliability program to key decision-makers.“ In the field of Maintenance and Reliability, there are many different Key Performance Indicators that can be utilized.  A manager can trend lagging indicators designed to track business performance at a high-level, or leading indicators which target the performance of specific elements within an overall reliability strategy.

One example of such a leading indicator would be PM Completion rate.  Generally speaking, leading indicators tend to “measure the tool” rather than judge the results of the handiwork.  This type of data is of great interest to M&R managers who are charged with developing and sustaining an effective reliability program.

High level business leaders are less concerned with the tools of the trade and more concerned with the results produced by them. One group of lagging indicators that is always of great importance to a reliability program is cost.  Cost can be measured in many different ways and at many different levels within an organization.  But one of the most important cost measurements that can help translate the value of an effective reliability program to a key decision maker is Cost Avoidance.  Cost Avoidance is basically a measure of the monetary costs not incurred due to the proactive restoration of a piece of equipment.

I touched upon the usage of Cost Avoidance data in my 2006 Uptime Magazine article entitled:  “Soul Mates – Vibration Analysis and Bearing Analysis were made for each other” Here is an excerpt:

Last, but not least, my favorite.  In our case study, the spindle was only two months old.  To the skeptic of predictive technology, it would be absolutely ridiculous to replace a two-month old spindle because the “vibration guys” saw a few peaks and valleys on a chart.  It wasn’t making any noise yet, and there were no part quality issues.  There were people (as there are in every organization) who were pretty adamant about letting everyone know that “this spindle doesn’t need to be changed”.  In most organizations, that’s where it ends; the spindle may get changed, and the predictive analysts are criticized for replacing “good” spindles.  Then, if one burns up, they get hammered for that!  (can anyone else relate to this?)  As your reputation is damaged, it becomes harder to justify the resources needed to maintain or grow an effective program.

In our case study, we not only widely published our vibration reports before and after the spindle replacement, but also the Root Cause Bearing Analysis report.  We didn’t just get the word out, we provided a plethora of quantitative and qualitative data which supported our assertions and claims.  Nothing defuses hearsay better than THE FACTS.  And one of my favorite facts to throw around is COST AVOIDANCE.  SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!  That’s what it’s really all about, isn’t it? (bang for the buck, the proof in the pudding) So to aid in changing the mind-set, we maintain a visual display in front of the main office that details our latest successes, and emphasizes the cost avoidance.

Make sure and subscribe to ReliabilitySPOT so that you don’t miss my next post:  Apollo 13:  a Reliability Perspective – Part I

The Man in the Arena: Part II

In Part One, I spoke of how President Theodore Roosevelt described “The Man in the Arena” and how Peyton Manning and sometimes The Reliability Engineer can become the favorite subject of critics.  These “Armchair Quarterbacks” can share some common traits, among them:

• Selective Memory:  They only remember when you fall short, ignore successes
• Bias:  Tend to quickly gravitate to an assessment that fits their paradigm or is self-serving

Even if one hasn’t followed the NFL during the past 10 years, it doesn’t take much statistical research to find that Peyton Manning is not only one of the best QBs to take the field in the past decade, but of all time.  Along with his stellar career numbers, one can also note that he possesses a Super Bowl ring; that elusive prize that many greats have never attained (including his father, Archie).  So statistics may not be everything, but they can go a long way to shed light on the distorted claims of “Armchair Quarterbacks”.

In the field of Maintenance and Reliability, it is important to establish meaningful Key Performance Indicators.  Not only will KPI analysis help prioritize where the reliability engineer spends his or her continuous improvement energies, but these important measurement tools can also be used to reaffirm the value of the maintenance and reliability program to key decision-makers. This can be critical in terms of attaining funds for maintaining an effective program “that no one knows about”.

Finally, it should be obvious that a team like the Super Bowl Champion New Orleans Saints can be an example to all of us who strive for success, no matter what our endeavor.  Head Coach Sean Payton and his staff developed an effective strategy designed to leverage the talents of his individual players and seize opportunities as they became available.  Executing this strategy to near-perfection, these players excelled collectively as a highly-prepared unit with a common focus on the mission at hand (much to the delight of the Who Dat Nation).

For the first 22 years of their existence, the Saints were the laughing stock of the NFL and never had a winning season.  They were known as “The Ain’ts”.  But Coach Payton would not allow their embarrassing past to define the future (their first-ever Super Bowl performance).  He was there to craft an effective strategy to the make the goal attainable.  Coach was there to ensure that his team was fully prepared to execute his strategy.  Coach was there to assess his team’s strengths and weaknesses during execution in order to identify areas to improve upon and adjust the strategy.  He was there to challenge accepted conventional wisdom (on-side kick decision to open the second half).  Coach was there to change paradigms.  He was there to shout “Get up and do it again until you get it right!”

As ”The Man in the Arena”, it’s a good thing to have an experienced and knowledgeable Maintenance & Reliability coach on your side; one who is ready to help you forever change the M & R paradigm at your facility and enable measureable Reliability Success that defies the most experienced armchair quarterback!

Make sure and subscribe to ReliabilitySPOT so that you don’t miss my next post:  Cost Avoidance: Show Me the Money!

The Man in the Arena: Part I

By now you certainly know that the NFL served up a classic last night as the New Orleans Saints soundly defeated the Indianapolis Colts.  The game itself was exciting to watch, and the outcome was unexpected to say the least.  I guess that’s why they play the games!  There were tremendous efforts on both sides.  Both teams had put countless hours into preparation for what would be the most important challenge of their lives.  But what does this have to do with Predictive or Preventive Maintenance?  What does this have to do with Asset Reliability?

There’s a lesson here as we take a look at “The Losers” as some are referring to Peyton Manning and the Colts. There has been plenty of Peyton bashing going on as Colt fans and Manning haters ignore his past successes and focus their wrath on the one key mistake he made:  that 4^th quarter interception. I have read that he is a “loser”, a “crybaby”, and that he ultimately doesn’t measure up with the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.

Now as a Tennessee Titans fan, I usually enjoy it when Manning and the Colts lose.  But to lay all the blame for this loss on Mannings shoulders is just not right.  There were plenty of dropped passes, blown assignments, missed tackles and squandered opportunities to go around.  If we really take a close look at what went wrong for the Colts, we can spread the blame around to plenty of other folks along with the QB. But the critics will continue to beat the Manning drum.

As I hear these critics, I am reminded of the powerful words of the 26^th president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

These words are as relevant today as they were nearly 100 years ago when they were first spoken.  In many manufacturing facilities, process equipment sometimes fails, and many times it is the operations folks who are quick to point out that the maintenance team “blew it”.  The “Peyton Manning” of the maintenance and reliability team is usually the Reliability Engineer; otherwise known as The Man in the Arena, who’s successes are many, but who’s failures are most memorable.

Make sure and subscribe to ReliabilitySPOT so that you don’t miss my next post:  The Man in the Arena:  Part II.

Doctor… Which Predictive Technology Should I Use?

Whoa, whoa, whoa… hang on there a second!  To answer this question, we first have to answer another question:  What are we looking to find?  Many people have the idea that they are “The Vibration Guy”, or the “Infrared Dude”.  The fact is that if a PdM technician concentrates on a lone technology, he may find himself “wagging the dog”. By this I mean the reliability strategy should dictate which PdM technology(s) to use, not the other way around.  The technology(s) selected should be driven by the failure mode(s) of interest.  Once the most common failure modes have been identified, a strategy needs to be developed to accurately detect the failure mechanism physical characteristics.  This is not unlike what physicians do to diagnose a disease.

In manufacturing, several different predictive technologies can be used to collect data which, when analyzed, can give an indication of the machine or system condition.  In the medical industry, healthcare professionals also collect and analyze data from test instruments to assess a patient’s condition.  An accurate assessment of the patient’s condition is critical when determining the course of action for medical treatment, and the same holds true for machines.

A medical test can take on many forms, but most have something in common.  The majority of medical diagnostic tests attempt to detect a significant change in the human body.  Many times the detection process focuses on a particular byproduct of the disease in question.  For example, an oncologist may suspect that a patient has an early stage of cancer, so he tests a blood sample for the presence of a particular enzyme.  This data is regarded as significant because the presence of the enzyme is many times associated with a particular type of cancer cell.  If the enzyme is found, he can reason that such a cancer is more likely to exist and order follow-up testing to confirm his suspicion.  So, he did not actually see the cancerous tissue itself, but an identifying characteristic or byproduct that is associated with it.

Simply put, predictive testing entails use of test instruments to extend the humans senses.  This extension of the senses can give the analyst the ability to spot the early warning signs of a potential failure.  The use of a confirmation technology can serve to reaffirm the diagnosis… a second opinion, if you will. This second opinion can provide additional clarity as to the severity of a potential failure, as well.

It is up to the physician to bridge the gap between raw data and relevant interpretation based on his training, knowledge, and experience.  Likewise, it is the condition monitoring analyst’s task to bridge this gap as well, as it relates to the presence and degree of severity of a failure mechanism.

Your failure mode physical characteristics could include vibration, ultrasonic vibration, thermal energy, wear debris, chemical and physical property changes to reservoir oil, etc.  The presence of significant failure mechanism physical characteristics is identified by analyzing data collected using these predictive technologies.  Therefore, the analyst should be properly trained and proficient at multiple technologies in order to become most effective.

So to answer the original question, there is no general short answer; it really depends on your particular failure modes of interest.  These failure modes will drive which technologies will be most effective.  Training and mentoring with subject matter experts to help develop your strategy will improve your chances of success; and the huge cost savings that come with failure elimination!  Mentoring will also help your people focus on the failure mode rather than the PdM tool, and prevent the tail from wagging the dog!

Make sure and subscribe to ReliabilitySPOT so that you don’t miss my next posting:  The Man in the Arena.