Measuring the right things the right way

SOLUTIONSVolume 11, Issue 5 SEPT-OCT 2016THE MAGAZINE BY PRACTITIONERS FOR PRACTITIONERS

WORK MANAGEMENT

CONTENTSSept-Oct 2016

1 Contributors, Officers & Directors

2 From the Chair Bob Kazar, CMRP, PMP, SMRP Chair

3 Identifying Work and Clean Backlog – A Good Start to Work Management Blane Jarchow, CMRP

7 Measuring the Right Things the Right Way Victor D. Manriquez, CMRP

11 The Planning and Scheduling Work Team Bobby Allen, CMRP

17 Looking to 2017: A renewed focus

19 Mumbai’s Dabbawalas: Setting the Standard for Reliability through Planning & Scheduling Erin Erickson, SMRP Executive Director

21 Executive Member Spotlight

23 News

25 Why I Certify

26 SMRP Approved Providers

27 Welcome New Members

34 New CMRPs

35 New CMRTs

36 Approved Provider Spotlight

40 SMRPCO Sustaining Sponsors

SMRP Solutions (ISN#1552-5082) is published bi-monthly by the Society for Maintenance and

Reliability Professionals, exclusively for SMRP members. The annual subscription rate is $15 for

members, which is included in dues. The Society was incorporated as an Illinois not-for profit

corporation in 1992 for those in the maintenance profession to share practitioner experiences

and network. The Society is dedicated to excellence in maintenance and reliability in all types

of manufacturing and services organizations, and promotes maintenance excellence worldwide.

SMRP’s Mission is to develop and promote leaders in Reliability and Physical Asset Management.

The products featured in SMRP Solutions are not endorsed by SMRP, and SMRP assumes no responsibility in connection with the purchase or use of such products. The opinions expressed in the articles contained in SMRP Solutions are not necessarily those of the editor or SMRP.

Back Issues: The current issue and back issues of SMRP Solutions can be downloaded from the library area of the SMRP Web site. Original versions of the current issue and some back issues of Solutions are available by contacting SMRP Headquarters ($5 per copy for members, $10 per copy for non-members).

SEND ADDRESS CHANGES AND INQUIRIES TO: SMRP Headquarters, 1100 Johnson Ferry Road, Suite 300, Atlanta, GA 30342, 800-950-7354, Fax: 404-252-0774, E-mail: [email protected].

SEPT-OCT 2016 • VOLUME 11, ISSUE 51

CONTRIBUTORS AND BOARDCONTRIBUTORS

SMRP OFFICERS & DIRECTORS (AS OF OCTOBER 17, 2016)

Chair Larry Hoing, CMRP, CMRT Wells Enterprises [email protected] 712-540-6511

Vice Chair Howard Penrose, CMRP MotorDoc, LLC [email protected] 630-310-4568

Treasurer Vlad Bacalu, CMRP, CMRT AECOM [email protected] 330-888-5680

Secretary Gina Hutto-Kittle, CMRP The Timken Company [email protected] 330-471-7465

Immediate Past Chair Bob Kazar, CMRP, PMP The Wonderful Company [email protected] 661-432-4951

Certification Director Bruce Hawkins, CMRP Emerson Process Management [email protected]

843-670-6435

Body of Knowledge Director Paul Casto, CMRP Meridium [email protected] 540-344-9205

Education Director Christopher Mears, CMRP Jacobs Engineering/ATA [email protected] 931-454-5837

Member Services Director Jeff Shiver, CMRP People & Processes [email protected] 843-814-6198

Outreach Director Carl Schultz, CMRP Advanced Technology Solutions, Inc. [email protected] 203-733-3333

Blane Jarchow, CMRP is an expert in equip-ment maintenance, operations efficiency and lean manufacturing. He has over 20 years of manufacturing and maintenance/equipment reliability consulting experience. Blane has manufacturing, operations, maintenance, equipment reliability, process improvement and lean manufacturing experience across numerous industries throughout the world. He is a graduate from the University of Wisconsin School of Business with a BBA in Marketing. He served in the United States Navy as an Officer. He resides in Pilot Point, Texas.

Victor D. Manriquez, CMRP has 30 years of professional experience in the mining, oil and energy industry sector. Victor is currently the head of reliability and CBM at Chicago Bridge & Iron Company. Victor also teaches courses and workshops on maintenance and reliability related issues in Peru and Costa Rica.

Bobby Allen, CMRP is a Senior Reliability Professional and the Planning & Scheduling Discipline Leader at Allied Reliability Group. With 34 years of acquired skills and experience in plant maintenance, reliability and leadership, he has a proven background in cost saving initiatives, planning, scheduling and resource management. He is particularly effective in the development, implementation and optimization of maintenance processes. Bobby is a Certified Maintenance & Reliability Professional (CMRP), a Certified Instructor for the Natural Work Team Certification process, and has presented at various conferences, including SMRP’s Annual Conference.


FEATURE

MEASURING THE RIGHT THINGS THE RIGHT WAY

Victor D. Manriquez, CMRP

SEPT-OCT 2016 • VOLUME 11, ISSUE 5 8

FEATURE

Metrics are everyday issues in a maintenance and reliability organization. They can have different values and effects on organizational goals.

Examples of metrics that are able to be quantified include: the firing of a boss, the resolution of a contract, the application of a prize or a penalty, and the searching for explanations.

As the SMRP Body of Knowledge (BoK) indicates in the first pillar, “measure performance” refers us to the performance monitoring and reminds us that:

1. The chosen KPI should be related to the organizational objectives

2. Measuring the right things the right way is a key to any successful maintenance and reliability process.

3. Each KPI should be the result of multiple dimensions that check for quantity as well as quality.

In Pillar 5, it teaches us to “measure work management performance (establish performance indicators, report schedule compliance and rework, etc.)” while recommending that we:

1. Demonstrate the understanding of maintenance performance metrics.

2. Ensure we are measuring what should be managed.

3. Select appropriate and achievable metrics to support the need of the business.

In this article I will refer to three cases where the incorrect measurement of the metric can lead to bad decisions. I will also speak on another case where the metric selection was not suited.

CASE 1In a company of outsourced maintenance services, the planner delivers the monthly information to the reliability analyst (for the backlog calculation) as outlined in the work flow of this process. The analyst performs the calculation and obtains the backlog values with the formula:

With the information received from planning, the calculation value for this metric was never greater than one; it was between 0.6 and 0.8 weeks. The analyst decided to look for information about what it is the best value in its class for this metric and found that it is between two and four weeks! (SMRP Guide for Metric 5.4.9 Ready Backlog).

The backlog value for maintenance work in this service was better than world-class. The analyst doubted this value because another metric being used in the process that was the “Schedule Compliance Hours” did not

overcome the 50 percent average for a best value in its class of 90 percent. On one hand, how do we understand that the backlog showed pending work for execution was so low and, by the other hand, the scheduled work showed so little compliance?

The next step was to review the backlog definition. SMRP presents definitions for two types of backlog, the “Ready Backlog” and the “Planned Backlog”. Ready Backlog is the “classical” definition and stands for:

From this definition, we understand that the backlog is not only the pending work from the previous week, which was not completed due to the scarcity of man power, but also the work that is scheduled for the upcoming week. Additionally, the planner only included the work not performed in the last month, ignoring the previous months. Finally, the works were computed over the work orders’ (WO) chronological hours, instead of the man hours of the personnel assigned. These three distortions, or “nonconformance”, were the ones that produced the mistakes in backlog calculation, and for that reason it showed the low values that did not correspond with the real maintenance work.

After the corrections were made, the backlog value became five weeks, a value according to the work scheduling status in this service.

To summarize, the mistakes in calculations in this case were:

• Not including the hours of the actual week in the “ready work”.

• Limiting the work orders not performed to only the previous month.

• Using chronological hours instead of man hours from WOs.

• Misconceptions about definitions and elements

involved in backlog calculation.

“The metric is the quantity of work that has been fully prepared for execution, but has not yet been executed.

It is work for which all planning has been done and

materials have been procured. However, work is awaiting

assigned labor for execution.”

Backlog = (Ready Work)

(Crew Capacity)(weeks)


FEATURECASE 2As with the previous case, I was consulted for a backlog situation in an outsourced maintenance service. This time the backlog value was great – in the order from five to seven weeks. This was motive for the client’s claim to the contractor. This delay in the work compliance, which was showed in the backlog, implied that the service contractor should provide additional personnel at its cost to perform the work in the backlog.

According to what was established in the contract, the client´s personnel emitted the WO, which the contractor’s personnel would plan and schedule. We took a sample of WO that was sent to schedule and to be reviewed and found that these WOs were far from being planned work in the SMRP definition for “planned work”, which states:

The sample of WOs reviewed showed a high percentage of them that didn’t include materials, others with materials not required, or included materials out of stock in the warehouse. Estimated planned hours were underestimated. In other words, WOs were sent to scheduling without having been completely planned. This situation drove these WOs to a point where they were condemned to the backlog since the moment they were scheduled.

Additionally, because of the missing WO data not stored in the CMMS, it used an ad hoc algorithm to obtain the WOs’ man power. This time, the mistakes in calculation were:

• Scheduling work orders that had been not properly planned with all the resources.

• Use of an arbitrary calculation for estimating man hours of ready work instead of the man hours from the WO.

CASE 3A reliability engineer that worked in a plastic film production plant told me they measured the mean time between failures (MTBF) for each production line. The values were really low. In particular, the previous month they had registered an MTBF of 48 hours for one of the lines.

The formula for MTBF calculation is:

With the operating time, there was no confusion; it was counted by the odometer installed in the line. The difference was in the number of failures. When we reviewed the list of events for non-scheduled stops (from 15 events registered) 10 of them indicated that an alarm had been shown in the control panel, but the production line had neither stopped nor reduced its production rate. The alarm signal had been reset, and the production went on without downtime or loss.

As the definition of failure in the standard ISO 14224:2006, item 3.15 states, it is a “termination of the ability of an item to perform a required function”. The same concept is included in the SMRP Guide 3.4.1: “When an asset is unable to perform its required function“.

According to these definitions, those 10 events that the alarm signaled, but didn’t stop production, didn’t qualify as failures because the production line did not lose its ability to perform the required function.

For the MTBF calculation, they should have only taken in consideration the five events that produced the stop of the production line when it “was unable to perform the required function”. The MTBF value after the correction was 144 hours.

Of course the cause or causes for the alarm signals, without stop, should be investigated, assessed and corrected in a scheduled maintenance.

The error in the MTBF calculation was:

• Including events that don’t qualify as failures according to the standard definition. This increases the denominator in the formula with the consequent decrease in the MTBF value.

“Jobs in which all labor, materials, tools, safety

considerations and coordination with the asset owner have been estimated and communicated prior to

the commencement of work.”

MTBF = (Operating Time (Hours))

(Number of Failures)(Hours)

SEPT-OCT 2016 • VOLUME 11, ISSUE 5 10

FEATURECASE 4In a cement production facility, the “reliability and continuing improvement engineer” commented that the main indicator of the maintenance performance, the MTBF, was calculated over all of the equipment in the plant – meaning not the MTBF for all the equipment considered individually, but a MTBF for all the failures mixed as a “Global MTBF”. This was justified by management by stating “if the maintenance in all equipment improves, this will be reflected in all the plant and improve this “Global MTBF”.

This could be right if what you want is only a number to show in meetings. A more important question is will this metric help us to take preventive or corrective actions and improve our maintenance performance?

The MTBF is linked to the number of failures, which are related to the failure modes. In the end, these affect the corresponding equipment. By that reason, the MTBF is better used at the level of assets and components to compare the reliability of similar type of assets. Like it was used in this case, MTBF is an indicator for a plant that includes a diversity of equipment like crushers, mills, furnaces, cyclones, centrifugal fans and belt conveyors, among others.

The mess in this situation stemmed from the indicator selection stage, where the indicator chosen (MTBF) is not the most adequate indicator to align with the objectives of the area.

CONCLUSIONWhen selecting the metrics to measure and monitor the maintenance and reliability management, we should consider:

1. Defining the objectives we are looking for with our maintenance and reliability management. Using objectives of the SMART type is a good option. SMART is the acronym for Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time based.

2. Choosing the metrics that align themselves better with the objectives that we predict will be reached by the organization.

3. Using standardized metrics, like the ones in the SMRP guides (67 metrics organized by BoK Pillars) or from the European standard EN 15341:2007 (71 metrics organized in three groups: technical, economical and organizational ones).

4. Establishing internal procedures or instructions where the formulas and considerations for metrics calculation must be precise.

5. Training the responsible personnel in the collection, processing and calculations of the data in order to minimize the non-conformities.

LEAK-SNIFFING DOG / P.13

THE SAFER BREWERY / P.17

COOLING TOWER FAN ALIGNMENT / P.36

FRITO-LAY'S BIG PICTURE / P.44

BEHIND THE NEW OSHA RULESFINAL CHANGES FOR ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION,

TRANSMISSION, AND DISTRIBUTION - PART II

M A I N T E N A N C E | R E L I A B I L I T Y | E N G I N E E R I N G | P R O D U C T I O N

www.plantservices.com



OPEN THE DOOR TO OSHA COMPLIANCEUnderstand the changes to rules

for electric power generation, transmission, and distribution

ROBOTIC WELDING FUME CONTROL / P.11

SUMMERIZE YOUR AIR SYSTEM / P.16

WHO’S GOT THERMO SWAG? / P.34

DISSENSION IN THE TRENCHES / P.43


RELIABILITY AT ALCOA / P.34

BREWERY LUBRICATION / P.41

LIGHTS OUT IN THE TRENCHES / P.49

THE TOYOTA WAY / P.51

Provide adequate compressor power for sidestream mixing



WWW.PLANTSERVICES.COM

RETAIN RENTED KNOWLEDGE / P.9

BEARING LIFE BUILDERS / P.13

NEW ARC FLASH NOTES / P.40

50 YEARS OF RELIABILITY / P.45

Mix monitoring tools to measure machine health

WHAT IS YOUR EQUIPMENT TRYING TO TELL YOU?


CORROSION= DANGER+COST / P.11

YOUR NEXT ROBOT / P.25

THE ALIGNMENT VIBE / P.44

CLIMATE CHANGE PROFIT / P.58

Replace ham-handed greasing with spot-on oiling



DEFINE M&R SUCCESS / P.8

FIRST 3 Rs OF COMPRESSED

AIR / P.34

BALANCE FOR MOTOR HEALTH / P.30

PdM TECHNOLOGY ROUNDUP / P.38


HOLD IT TOGETHER WITH DIVERSE DATA


HVAC AT MI-T-M / P.13

ALCOA'S KITTING SUCCESS / P.30

EAM SURVEY RESULTS / P.37

D'ADDARIO'S LEAN STRATEGY / P.42


Compressed air’s role in minimizing cost and maximizing system efficiency


SUBARU'S WILDLIFE REFUGE / P.11

MONITOR MOTOR CONDITIONS / P.21

IN THE TRENCHES GETS HEAVY / P.40

HEAT RECOVERY REALITY / P.46


TREAT HEAT LIKE A NATIONAL TREASURE

THE POWER OF HISTORY IN OUR HANDS


AN ARC FLASH RELAY IN TIME / P.13

BEARING INNOVATIONS / P.25

HYPERTHERM'S OPERATOR AUTONOMY / P.41

OEE AND CAPACITY / P.45

9 TRENDS SHAPING THE FUTURE OF CMMS/EAM




PLANT ENERGY CONTROL / P.9

COMPRESSED AIR PdM / P.15

PRODUCTIVITY ASSESSMENT / P.42

PUMP & SEAL ROUNDUP / P.63

MEET THE NEW BREED OF INFRARED INSPECTOR

THERMO SAPIENS



PROFITABLE MAINTENANCE / P.9

SUSTAINABLE RELIABILITY / P.35

ALCOA'S OPERATOR PdM / P.47

INTEGRATED POWER PLANS / P.58PREPARE FOR IT;

MANAGE IT

ELECTRICAL DANGER



SAVE MONEY WITH PRECISION LAZINESS / P.9

THE RISE OF REMOTE MONITORING / P.21

PREDICTIVE MOTOR MAINTENANCE / P.38

KPIs FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT / P.51

FIND THE ROOT OF REPETITIVE FAILURESFIND THE ROOT OF REPETITIVE

ADVADVADVADVADVAAAAADVAADVADVAADVADVAADV NCED PUMNCED PUMNCED PUMNCED PUMDDIIIAAAAGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSAGNOSTICSAAGNOSTICSAAGNOSTICSA

BEHIND THE NEW OSHA RULESFINAL CHANGES FOR ELECTRIC POWER GENERAT POWER GENERAT POWER GENERA ION,

TRANSMISSION, AND DISTRIBUTION - PART II

M A I N T E N A N C E | R E L I A B I L I T Y | E N G I N E E


RETAIN RENTED KNOWLEDGE / P.9

BEARING LIFE BUILDERS / P.13

NEW ARC FLASH NOTES / P.40

50 YEARS OF RELIABILITY / P.45Y / P.45Y

M A I N T E N A N C E | R E L I A B I L I T Y |

WHAT IS YOUR EQUIPMENT TRYING TO TELL YOU?


Compressed air’s role in minimizing cost and maximizing system efficiency


PLANT ENERGY CONTROL / P.9P.9P

COMPRESSED AIR PdM / P.15P.15P

PRODUCTIVITY ASSESSMENT / P.42P.42P

PUMP & SEAL ROUNDUP / P.63P.63P

MEET THE NEW BREED OF INFRARED INSPECTOR

THERMO SAPIENSSAPIENSSAPIEN




DEFINE M&R SUCCESS / P.8SS / P.8SS

FIRST 3 Rs OF s OF sCOMPRESSED

AIR / P.34R / P.34R

BALANCE FOR MOTORHEALTH / P.30

PdM TECHNOLOGY ROUNDUP / P.38


IT TOGETHER WITR WITR H DIVERSE DATDATDA ATAT

ORY ORY ORY ANDSANDSANDSANDSANDS





SAVE MONEY WITH PRECISION LAZINESS / P.9

THE RISE OF REMOTE MONITORING / P.21

PREDICTIVE MOTOR MAINTENANCE / P.38

KPIs FOR CONTINUOUSIMPROVEMENT / P.51

REPETITIVE FAILURESFAILURESF REPETITIVE FAILURESFAILURESF

NCED PUMNCED PUMNCED PUMNCED PUMNCED PUMNCED PUMNCED PUMPPGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICSGNOSTICS

YOUR PLANT IS PROFITABLE ONLY WHEN EQUIPMENT IS RUNNING.

GET PRODUCTIVE.

Read what business-savvy maintenance, reliability, and plant managers are reading to keep their machines and facilities operational.


PS1407_3x10_Generic_HouseAd_Vert.indd 1 7/17/14 8:55 AM

Leadership & Management

Measuring the right things the right way