Speaking with numerous maintenance professionals across multiple industries, invariably the conversation seems to center on how to create an optimal balance of proactive and reactive maintenance and how to get there. The discussions often come disguised in modern-day labels, such as lean, reliability-centered maintenance (RCM), and total productive maintenance (TPM). However, there's no mistaking the underlying issues: companies need to become better at operating a more stable, planned, and predictable maintenance environment at minimal cost.
Although the figures vary, most maintenance managers would agree they don't like playing the role of firefighter with as many as 40 to 80 percent of requests for maintenance services unplanned or even emergencies. There's much debate on the subject, but it appears that a reasonable target for the ratio of planned to unplanned maintenance is 80:20. Clearly, many manufacturing environments have far to go to achieve this target. Companies that have moved from a highly reactive environment to a more planned environment notice significant improvements. They include
* significant reductions in total downtime;
* lower inventory of spare parts required in stores;
* increased production capacity, as fewer machines lie idle or are in the shop;
* less space requirements for spare parts and equipment that's down;
* fewer rush orders required;
* fewer quick fixes and less mistakes made;
* improved use of maintenance staff;
* less overtime needed to respond to emergencies;
* less stress with a planned shutdown;
* better yield and less scrap, waste, rework, etc.;
* lower total cost of ownership of assets; and
* more predictable and stable production scheduling, so that customer responsiveness is improved.
For companies moving in the right direction, however, there's still some uncertainty as to the optimal balance of reactive maintenance, preventive maintenance (PM), and predictive maintenance (PdM) for their particular environments. Generally, organizations that are well on their way to building a planned environment do so using a high proportion of PM, as opposed to what's perceived as more expensive PdM technologies. Predictive-based technologies, however, are becoming less expensive. Today, you're seeing more general technology improvements, which change the point of optimal balance. Thus, even the more sophisticated maintenance departments feel the best way to determine the optimum is on a trial and error basis.
A computerized maintenance management software (CMMS) or enterprise asset management (EAM) system is a useful tool to build an accurate equipment history and provide comprehensive analysis capability. With a realistic history, companies can balance the cost of replacing the equipment versus maintaining it through an optimal mix of reactive, PM and PdM maintenance. A CMMS can help calculate the total cost of downtime and poor quality, as part of the optimal balance calculation. Perhaps surprisingly, not many companies track these costs.
Additionally, the CMMS can help identify the root cause of maintenance-related failure or quality problems, so that the frequency of maintenance can be reduced through prevention, (such as the training of operators) or condition monitoring, (such as a vibration analysis). This is critical to the success of any maintenance program.
Begin with criticality analysis
Moving too quickly to either end of the reactive/preventive/predictive continuum can be a costly exercise. For example, monitoring the condition of each and every light bulb in your facility so that they might be replaced just prior to failure is massive overkill. On the other hand, however, allowing a critical component of an expensive asset to run to failure is unthinkable. Maintainers have the option of monitoring conditions (e.g. vibration), whereby they can save millions of dollars in downtime costs. These are obvious examples. With most assets, however, it can be a long and painful process to identify the optimal mix of reactive, PM, and PdM maintenance.
To determine the most cost-effective approach to maintaining an asset, different questions are posed for each component. This is often referred to as criticality analysis and is part of an RCM program. Some of the more important questions include the following: What does this component do? What happens if it fails (for example, no impact versus catastrophic)? What's the most cost-effective maintenance program required (such as reactive, PM or PdM)?
A few of the more sophisticated CMMS packages will assist in determining and documenting some or all of the answers to these questions. Examples of the type of data collected and analyzed include the following:
source
http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/use-cmms-to-improve-pdm-performance-17190/
Although the figures vary, most maintenance managers would agree they don't like playing the role of firefighter with as many as 40 to 80 percent of requests for maintenance services unplanned or even emergencies. There's much debate on the subject, but it appears that a reasonable target for the ratio of planned to unplanned maintenance is 80:20. Clearly, many manufacturing environments have far to go to achieve this target. Companies that have moved from a highly reactive environment to a more planned environment notice significant improvements. They include
* significant reductions in total downtime;
* lower inventory of spare parts required in stores;
* increased production capacity, as fewer machines lie idle or are in the shop;
* less space requirements for spare parts and equipment that's down;
* fewer rush orders required;
* fewer quick fixes and less mistakes made;
* improved use of maintenance staff;
* less overtime needed to respond to emergencies;
* less stress with a planned shutdown;
* better yield and less scrap, waste, rework, etc.;
* lower total cost of ownership of assets; and
* more predictable and stable production scheduling, so that customer responsiveness is improved.
For companies moving in the right direction, however, there's still some uncertainty as to the optimal balance of reactive maintenance, preventive maintenance (PM), and predictive maintenance (PdM) for their particular environments. Generally, organizations that are well on their way to building a planned environment do so using a high proportion of PM, as opposed to what's perceived as more expensive PdM technologies. Predictive-based technologies, however, are becoming less expensive. Today, you're seeing more general technology improvements, which change the point of optimal balance. Thus, even the more sophisticated maintenance departments feel the best way to determine the optimum is on a trial and error basis.
A computerized maintenance management software (CMMS) or enterprise asset management (EAM) system is a useful tool to build an accurate equipment history and provide comprehensive analysis capability. With a realistic history, companies can balance the cost of replacing the equipment versus maintaining it through an optimal mix of reactive, PM and PdM maintenance. A CMMS can help calculate the total cost of downtime and poor quality, as part of the optimal balance calculation. Perhaps surprisingly, not many companies track these costs.
Additionally, the CMMS can help identify the root cause of maintenance-related failure or quality problems, so that the frequency of maintenance can be reduced through prevention, (such as the training of operators) or condition monitoring, (such as a vibration analysis). This is critical to the success of any maintenance program.
Begin with criticality analysis
Moving too quickly to either end of the reactive/preventive/predictive continuum can be a costly exercise. For example, monitoring the condition of each and every light bulb in your facility so that they might be replaced just prior to failure is massive overkill. On the other hand, however, allowing a critical component of an expensive asset to run to failure is unthinkable. Maintainers have the option of monitoring conditions (e.g. vibration), whereby they can save millions of dollars in downtime costs. These are obvious examples. With most assets, however, it can be a long and painful process to identify the optimal mix of reactive, PM, and PdM maintenance.
To determine the most cost-effective approach to maintaining an asset, different questions are posed for each component. This is often referred to as criticality analysis and is part of an RCM program. Some of the more important questions include the following: What does this component do? What happens if it fails (for example, no impact versus catastrophic)? What's the most cost-effective maintenance program required (such as reactive, PM or PdM)?
A few of the more sophisticated CMMS packages will assist in determining and documenting some or all of the answers to these questions. Examples of the type of data collected and analyzed include the following:
source
http://www.technologyevaluation.com/research/articles/use-cmms-to-improve-pdm-performance-17190/
No comments:
Post a Comment