How to Modernize Maintenance Processes

Article extract from ReliablePlant newsletter:
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/29240/cmms-iso-certification

It's one thing to claim customer satisfaction in marketing literature and Web content. It's another to achieve it by precisely measuring customer specifications and winning ISO 9000 certification.

Midland Metal Products (MMP) designs and fabricates permanent advertising display fixtures using sheet metal, wire and tubing for a vast array of consumer goods and products. As a fourth-generation supplier, MMP noticed that many of its processes had simply grown with the business. While going through certification audits, it became clear that the company needed to modernize its maintenance management process. Part of that certification process was to implement a computerized maintenance management system (CMMS).

Measurements Count

Because MMP builds advertising displays for ad agencies that serve hundreds of consumer retail brands, it receives specifications from ad agencies to fabricate displays from scratch.

"Because we do custom displays, we're bringing to life fabrications that haven't existed before," said B.J. McDonald, MMP's co-owner and facility director. "Erroneous measures can ruin the display. Therefore, our measuring tools have to give precise measurements."

To meet ISO standards, all 242 of MMP's measuring tools — from tape measurers to micrometers — must be calibrated precisely to the customer's measurement parameters.  

"The ISO 9001-2008 certification helped us look at our production system and come up with a precise process to do this one thing perfectly all the time – from the moment you get the customer order to the end product the customer receives," McDonald explained.

Because of the close tolerances for MMP's custom products, calibrating measurement devices was a major issue. 

"As part of our certification, ISO auditors looked at whether our measurement devices could fail," McDonald said. "Bigfoot CMMS helped us win ISO certification."

Before MMP installed its CMMS, the company had no way to adequately track or maintain any of its measurement devices. Today, MMP uses CMMS to schedule preventive maintenance (PM) for every measurement device used in the plant.

In addition, by employing CMMS to issue daily PMs, MMP shows ISO auditors and customers that the company is working within the tolerances of its market. According to ISO standards, each device must have a certificate of calibration to get the designation. This is one area where the company simply cannot miss a PM.

Maintenance Matters

MMP not only uses CMMS for measurement devices but also for its entire plant. Within its 110,000-square-foot facility, there are 138 pieces of production machinery equipment, such as turret presses, laser cutters, press brakes and resistance welders. This also includes a total of 2,100 assets from air and power tools to facility equipment, stationary power tools, personal-protection equipment, material handling and even janitorial supplies. However, of the 165 employees, only three are on its maintenance staff. Before CMMS was implemented, McDonald described the maintenance process as "a verbal and casual method of maintenance, responding to the loudest shout."

"We had no time to put a preventive maintenance program in place," he noted. "That also meant noncritical repairs sometimes got fixed before critical requests that were truly important to the operation. So downtime was a problem, too."

While implementing the two programs seemed like a big task, the initial prep work was worth it.

"The ISO preparation can seem, at times, as if it's adding complexity, but the end result is a streamlined system with increased efficiency across the board," McDonald added. "We get a similar result from our Bigfoot CMMS system. We had to asset-number every piece of equipment we use, down to tape measurers and air-conditioning units. Anything that needs maintenance, replacement, inspection, cleaning and calibration now has maintenance scheduled on Bigfoot CMMS."

MMP also uses CMMS for work orders, repair requests and PM scheduling. Its team generates about 2,400 work orders for PMs a year. This has allowed the company to reduce unforeseen repairs to about 20 percent of its previous workload.

PM Efficiencies Boost Uptime

With 15 seats to serve each department and a hierarchy of requestors, MMP has eliminated interruptions from ad-hoc requests. Now, the maintenance staff is more efficient.

"Once the PM calendar was set up, we were able to increase maintenance department productivity by being better able to distribute PMs more evenly," McDonald said.

The CMMS prioritizes high-value machine PMs so MMP can stay ahead of breakdowns. This is where the biggest improvement has been seen.

"With our PM program, we now average 99.6 percent uptime on our production equipment," McDonald noted.

Best Strategies for Managing Varnish

Article extract from ReliablePlant newsletter:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29354/managing-varnish-strategies

Varnish is the product of a chemical reaction within oil which leads to a new chemistry being created that is different from both the oil and its additives. A prevalent varnish begins as an acid, which is typically caused by a reaction of the oil’s additives as they become consumed or the base oil’s chemistry as it is degrading. It may also result from a reaction of the oil with other chemistries, which may be present as contaminants within the oil or the system. As with other lubricant-related properties or associated machine conditions, condition-monitoring techniques can be used to assess the accumulation of varnish within oil and manage the detrimental effects that follow.

Condition Monitoring

Lubricant condition monitoring involves obtaining data that supports an evaluation of the acceptability of the machine performance and the viability of the oil. To date, deposits on lubricated equipment have been the focus with regards to the detrimental effects of varnish. Figure 1 shows examples of bearings with significant varnish accumulation.

In general, the alarm and action criteria used within industry are set at levels to avoid power loss or machinery damage but may not include the prevention of varnish deposits. This discounts the effect varnish has on the design and performance of the oil and may allow oil to remain in service when it has exceeded failure criteria.

A principal area of lubricant condition monitoring that can often be overlooked is the suitability for continued use of the oil. This type of monitoring determines if the oil is able to meet its design properties. When outside of these criteria, the oil can be considered to be in a failure mode. Unfortunately, this aspect of lubricant condition monitoring appears to have become lost in comparison to the significant machinery impacts seen when varnish is found in turbine systems.

Figure 1. These heavy varnish deposits
were found on bearing surfaces.
(Courtesy Fluitec International)

If oil condition was the focus of monitoring rather than machine condition, then varnish likely would not progress to the point of accumulation and the oil would be much more capable of meeting its design. This type of lubricant condition monitoring should be emphasized when performing varnish-related monitoring since oil with a high varnish load can be expected to have critical loss in key design characteristics such as water separability and inhibiting corrosion/rust, foam and air release. Loss of any of these properties can place the system at significant risk. Testing criteria that focus on these properties should be at the forefront of the varnish issue.

Varnish Basics

The typical varnish progression begins with a reaction at the molecular level. This generally includes an oxygen molecule. In oil, the oxidized molecule is controlled through additives, which inhibit it from accelerating the degradation of the remaining oil. As more varnish forms, it becomes distinct particles that can be measured in nanometer-sized particles. As the numbers of these particles increase, this degradation material within the oil can be described as a varnish cloud of nanometer-sized material. When the cloud density oversaturates the oil, some of the varnish material will settle out within the lubrication system (like rain falling from the sky) in the form of a deposit. In time, the deposit can harden into a solid material, which is commonly known as varnish.

Oil Saturation

Turbine oil is designed to hold and manage a finite volume of varnish material. When this capacity is exceeded, the oil is considered saturated. Deposits can then form and accumulate in the system. Saturation has a relationship with temperature in that oil at a higher temperature is able to retain a greater volume of the nanometer-sized varnish material than oil at a lower temperature.

Figure 2. Varnish can occur in any system.
(Courtesy Paul Sly, Chevron)

The desired system condition for new oil would be to install the oil into a clean system so the progression of oil degradation and subsequent varnish accumulation would be limited to natural degradation of the oil. This degradation progression should be limited to the influences of new varnish created within the system as opposed to existing system varnish, which is known to accelerate oil oxidation.

It is important to install oil into a clean system so the maintenance sensitivity will more appropriately respond to the oil’s initial varnish saturation level as an oil failure criterion. This sensitivity should be maintained at the lowest expected system oil temperature rather than at a higher temperature, since deposits will form and collect in a system at this lower temperature, and deposit formation should be considered a lubricant failure mode.

Base Oil Influence

Varnish accumulation is also influenced by the base oil category, as designated by the American Petroleum Institute (API). Group II base oils have a superior design and can be expected to provide improved performance over Group I base oils, assuming that the system in which the oil is installed is clean. Both Group I and II base oils have inherent solvency, which means that they have a finite capacity to accumulate and hold varnish products. However, there is an important difference in how each does this. Due to the manufacturing process resulting in a more highly saturated molecule, Group II oils have less varnish-retention capacity than Group I oils. As such, Group II oils allow varnish deposits within a system to occur with a lower overall volume of the material present.

System Cleanliness

When a new charge of turbine oil is installed, it is vital that the system be clean and free of varnish. A common problem is that many existing systems are not cleaned prior to the installation of new/replacement oil. As mentioned previously, turbine oil has a natural design property that allows it to hold and accumulate varnish. In addition, existing system sludge and varnish that have adhered to surfaces within a turbine oil system are not readily dislodged with a system flush. As a result, when new, clean oil encounters this existing varnish within a system, it begins to chemically react with the varnish and remove this material from the walls, causing the new oil to approach a point of saturation.

Figure 3. Varnish deposits were
found within this system.

Within a relatively short period of time, this “chemical cleaning” phenomenon can render the benefits of a new oil change moot in terms of oil performance and design. In other words, the removal of system varnish may reduce the new oil to a “failed oil” status not long after it is placed in service.

The same condition occurs after a varnish-saturated oil is cleaned of varnish residue, but the cleaning is stopped prior to the system itself becoming clean. The newly cleaned oil will again accumulate varnish materials from the system to once again approach saturation levels. Remember, varnish acts as a catalyst to speed oil and additive degradation. As such, operating with varnish within the oil allows new varnish to form more quickly and shortens the service life of the oil.

Complications/Variations

The consequences of accumulated varnish within a turbine system can include power de-rating and damage to the operating equipment. When observed problems begin to occur, the concentration of varnish within the oil or system can vary greatly. Factors such as system design, variations in the system operating temperature and fluctuations in the system operating conditions all affect varnish formation.

Systems that use turbine oil as control oil are highly susceptible to issues. The control systems include tight orifices located in lower temperature regions. These conditions allow hot, saturated oil to accumulate deposits at these important system locations.

The choice of oil also impacts the rate of varnish generation and accumulation, as some oils are more prone to varnish drop-out than others. Figure 4 shows two samples with similar laboratory settling times. While these oils have a highly similar visual appearance, they have dramatically differing levels of varnish load, which is related to the influence of oil additives, base oil and the chosen formulation.

Figure 4. Different oil formulations can have very different
varnish conditions but appear highly similar.
(Courtesy Dave Wooton, Wooton Consulting)

Oils from different manufacturers are known to have different additives and base oils. Depending on the in-service operations, their differences can influence the severity of a developing varnish issue. Because these oil design variations are considered proprietary information by the lubricant manufacturers, the consumer of the oil is unlikely to be able to determine which oil formulation is least likely to cause varnish problems.

When system contaminants mix with the oil in service and further degrade it, the design properties such as water separation, foaming and the oil oxidation rate may be greatly compromised. As system design and operating conditions also vary, their impact should be considered as it relates to the select formula as well. This parameter of additive chemistry adds to existing varnish challenges for both oil performance and service life.

Laboratory Testing

The lubricant condition-monitoring community has developed a laboratory test (ASTM D7843) to assess the degree of accumulated varnish load within in-service oil. This Membrane Patch Colorimetry (MPC) test measures the overall load of varnish type material in the oil sample and includes a three-day settling period to allow varnish material to agglomerate within the oil, which is cooling from its operating temperature.

The oil is then filtered through a 0.45-micron cellulose patch with the aid of a solvent. Varnish material collects and deposits on the patch. The patch is checked for color, which is influenced by the volume of material deposited. A dark brown color is visible when more varnish from the fluid is on the patch surface.

Figure 5. The MPC test measurement of the sample on the
left was 24, while the sample on the right measured 156.
(Courtesy Dave Wooton, Wooton Counsulting)

Figure 5 shows side-by-side examples of a split sample of turbine oil that was allowed to sit for a two-week settling time under controlled conditions. The sample on the left was stored in the dark, while the sample on the right was left in the sun. The contribution of the sun is the difference in these samples, which have different colors and very different varnish loads.

Alarm Limits and Criteria

The lubricant test community is currently using various versions of the color patch test to assess the volume of varnish within oil and the likelihood of damaging deposits occurring. Unfortunately, the test variations in use may scale the color differently and provide differing warning and alarm limits. These differences can lead to significant confusion in the marketplace.

In addition, current alarm limits and action criteria focus on the effect of varnish accumulation on lubricated machinery. This approach discounts the impact of varnish on the design and function of the oil as well as the potential effect of this material on other oil failure modes.

3	days of settling is included in a Membrane Patch Colorimetry (MPC) test to allow varnish material to agglomerate within the oil, which is cooling from its operating temperature.

A more fundamental approach to setting alarm and action limits that includes the impact of varnish on the oil’s performance is needed. The criteria should consider when the oil has lost its design performance, and these performance failure modes should be the point of initial action.

A temperature limit of oil saturation could become an important criterion. This could be measured by the patch test but at lower limits than those presently used in order to avoid machinery issues. This approach could then retain the present criteria as a higher severity warning for varnish and separate criteria for its potential challenge to machine operation.

Mitigation

Since oil that is in operation at a fully saturated level can be expected to leave varnish deposits, mitigation strategies to manage this condition should be directed at keeping varnish levels at a concentration where deposits would not be expected to form. The following are viable preventive maintenance strategies that have been demonstrated to benefit the system oil condition or varnish saturation level:

Partial or Full Oil Changes

As new oil does not have any retained varnish products, it would not be expected to cause new deposits when added to the system. However, the benefit of this method is severely limited by the quantity of varnish deposits within the system. When new (or newly cleaned) oil is placed in service, its inherent design results in cleaning the existing system varnish, which then goes into the oil. After this has occurred, the oil can again become saturated, and new varnish deposits can commence once saturation levels have been reached.

A secondary problem can develop from this mitigation strategy if varnish is removed from a less harmful area and then re-deposited in more undesirable locations. Another drawback in making frequent oil additions including full oil replacement involves the expense, as large volumes of oil can be costly.

While this approach could be beneficial if implemented in a manner that keeps the oil in a less than saturated condition, managing this would require frequent laboratory tests to ensure the oil condition. It is also questionable whether oil consumers would be sufficiently sensitive to the rate of varnish accumulation or change in the new oil to properly implement this method. However, it would produce a net benefit if performed periodically, as the cleanliness of the system in terms of existing varnish deposits can be improved with time.

Filtration with Cellulose Media

The best time to filter varnish material retained within oil is when the oil is at an ambient temperature for a few days. This allows the varnish to agglomerate and be collected by the filter material. Filter replacement is a must if this strategy is employed, as varnish material removed from the oil at ambient temperature returns to solution if the filter is not replaced prior to returning the oil to the higher operating temperature. This is due to the greater solvency of the oil at the higher operating temperature.

The primary limitation of this approach is that the filtration is limited to the reservoir oil and cannot be expected to reduce the volume of varnish within the main turbine system. When the oil returns to service, its inherent design is as a solvent, thus the results are removal of system varnish. Once again, due to existing system deposits, a saturation of the operating oil can reoccur.

In addition, varnish can migrate from a less harmful area to an undesirable location. The overall cost of this strategy can also be expensive, as frequent filter replacements could be required to remove system varnish from the varnish-laden filters. However, this method does produce a net benefit when performed periodically, and the cleanliness of the system in terms of varnish deposits can be improved.

System Chemical Cleaning

This method is the quickest way to improve system cleanliness and allow the oil to function as it was designed. While a clean system will extend the useful service of the new replacement oil, it cannot be expected to prevent reoccurrence of varnish. Its cost to implement can also be high.

Ion Filtration

With ion filtration, oil is processed through resin beads, which chemically attract the varnish component and remove it from the oil. This cleaning can occur at operating temperature. Ion filtration takes advantage of the oil’s design to slowly clean and remove existing varnish from the system as the oil is in service. With time, this process produces both a clean system and clean oil.

Conclusion

Mitigation strategies of ambient temperature filtration followed by filter replacement or installation of new oils can be used to manage varnish in systems if carefully employed. Of course, these strategies will carry the cost of additional oil and filter purchases. Regular laboratory testing also would be needed to manage these strategies and to monitor their effectiveness.

The introduction of Group II base oils as a fundamental component of turbine oils has not caused the varnish issues that plants are currently encountering, although their solvency and capacity to hold varnish were contributing factors. The change to a Group II base oil component has reduced the capacity of the fluid to retain varnish materials. Additional contributors include the formulation of the oil, the system design, the operating conditions and how much existing varnish is within the system.

81%	of lubrication professionals have experienced problems caused by oil degradation products such as varnish and oxidation, according to a recent poll at machinerylubrication.com

A primary culprit of varnish problems occurring within industry can be directly attributed to the system cleanliness in terms of residual varnish deposits. The key to long-term varnish mitigation is in establishing a system free of varnish and then continuing a process that maintains both the oil and system in this condition. Ion filtration has been demonstrated to create these conditions, although once the system is clean, frequent oil additions or filter replacements may also be useful.

While the current industry focus regarding varnish has been on turbines, the same base oils and formulations are used for compressor, circulating and large motor/gearcase applications. Likewise, the same degradation mechanisms of the oil and additives would be present with subsequent varnish accumulations expected to occur. Such varnish deposits may be found on bearing and gear surfaces as well. Although the consequences of this accumulation and stress on oil properties have not been discussed, sensitivity to varnish should also be applied to these applications.

Alarm and action limits should be established to ensure system and oil cleanliness. This approach is challenged by long-standing plant operating expectations and experiences where varnish sensitivity was not required. The existing belief that there is an acceptable quantity of varnish within either the oil or system and that it is of no consequence must be overcome. Low action and alarm criteria should be set to protect the design and performance of the oil. In other words, a no-tolerance approach to varnish is required.

How to Resolve Workplace Conflict

Article extract from ReliablePlant newsletter:
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/29235/resolve-workplace-conflict

Conflict in the workplace seems to be a fact of life. We've all seen situations where different people with different goals and needs have come into conflict. And, we've all seen the often-intense personal animosity that can result.

Organization leaders are responsible for creating a work environment that enables people to thrive. If turf wars, disagreements and differences of opinion escalate into conflict, you must intervene immediately. Not intervening is not an option if you value your organization and your positive culture. In conflict-ridden situations, your mediation skill and interventions are critical.

In many cases, effective conflict resolution skills can make the difference between positive and negative outcomes. The good news is that by resolving conflict successfully, you can solve many of the problems that it has brought to the surface, as well as gain benefits that you might not at first expect, such as:

• Increased understanding: The discussion needed to resolve conflict expands people's awareness of the situation, giving them an insight into how they can achieve their own goals without undermining those of other people;
• Increased group cohesion: When conflict is resolved effectively, team members can develop stronger mutual respect and a renewed faith in their ability to work together; and
• Improved self-knowledge: Conflict pushes individuals to examine their goals in close detail, helping them understand the things that are most important to them, sharpening their focus and enhancing their effectiveness.

However, if conflict is handled ineffectively or if conflict is ignored, the results can be damaging. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike, teamwork breaks down, and talent is wasted as people disengage from their work.

Conflict within the workplace can result in a vicious downward spiral of negativity and recrimination. If you're to keep your team or organization working effectively, you need to stop this downward spiral as soon as you can.

As Susan M. Heathfield says in her conflict resolution article for About.com, "Do not believe, for even a moment, the only people who are affected by the conflict are the participants. Everyone in your office and every employee with whom the conflicting employees interact are affected by the stress. People feel as if they are walking on egg shells in the presence of the antagonists. This contributes to the creation of a hostile work environment for other employees. In worst-case scenarios, your organization members take sides, and your organization is divided."

Working Dynamics reports the following statistics that reflect the cost of conflict in organizations:

• Thirty to 42 percent of managers' time is spent reaching agreement with others when conflicts occur (Watson, C. and Hoffman, R., "Managers as Negotiators," Leadership Quarterly 7 (1) 1996).
• It is estimated that more than 65 percent of performance problems result from strained relationships between employees, not from deficits in individual employees' skill or motivation.
• It is estimated that sexual harassment claims alone are costing each Fortune 500 company $6.7 million per year, with costs for smaller companies being proportionately burdensome.
• Recent studies find that more than two-thirds of managers spend more than 10 percent of their time handling workplace conflict, and 44 percent of managers spend more than 20 percent of their time in conflict-related issues.
• A number of surveys indicate that people in all occupations report the most uncomfortable, stress-producing parts of their jobs are the interpersonal conflicts that they experience on a daily basis between themselves and co-workers or supervisors.

Below are a few of the most common reasons for workplace conflict:

1. Interpersonal Conflict — This conflict is usually caused by opposing personalities or personality clashes that can be caused by many factors such as jealousy, envy or even something as simple as a personal dislike of one person for another. Prejudices based on religious, racial or sexual differences also lead to interpersonal conflict. Often, interpersonal conflict creates gossip that not only perpetuates the conflict between the direct parties involved, but can also affect others on the team.
2. Structural Conflict — This is when departments have different needs and wants, and are not able to compromise.
3. Differing Goals — This is when departments have differing goals, and each department is working independently to achieve their goals.
4. Mutual Dependence of Departments — This is when two departments are dependent on each other, and the failure of either department affects the other.
5. Role Dissatisfaction — Certain departments or groups may feel that they are not receiving enough recognition or status. This may generate conflict between departments, groups or individuals.
6. Dependence on Common Resources — When two departments depend on common and scarce resources, conflict can evolve between departments and/or individuals.
7. Communication Barriers — This often occurs in organizations that have branch offices due to the geographic separation that makes consistent and timely communication possible.

Supervisors and managers who are experiencing conflict within their areas must always consider assessing their possible responsibilities in creating or enabling workplace conflict. Always ask, "What about the work situation is causing these staff members to fail?"

The workplace conflict may appear to be strictly interpersonal; however, it is important to candidly ask yourself if it is possible that workplace conditions were the catalyst or the enabler. Maybe a supervisor ignored the signs of budding conflict. People and departments may have been set up to compete for rewards and/or recognition. Perhaps the feeling is that the awards and recognition are distributed unfairly by management. Getting to the root cause of the conflict is critical in mediating and solving the conflict situation.

The single biggest mistake a supervisor or manager can make is to avoid the conflict, hoping it will go away. It never does! If the conflict appears to have died down on its own, the supervisor or manager may be tempted to believe that it has resolved itself. Conflict does not resolve itself! Invariably, it will rear its ugly head whenever stress increases or a new disagreement occurs.

Often, when conflict reappears, it is more volatile and more debilitating to the organization than it was initially. An unresolved conflict or interpersonal disagreement festers just under the surface in the work environment. It rises to the surface whenever enabled, and always at the worst possible moment.

With a little training, the manager in most cases is quite capable of facilitating conflict resolution sessions. However, if the conflict has escalated to a highly volatile state, it is recommended that a third impartial party attend the session to ensure objectivity and to document dialogue and agreements. The third party may be a human resources representative or another manager from a department that operates separately from the department experiencing the conflict.

The following are three strategies for conflict resolution:

Use Active Listening

During conflict situations, the parties involved tend to spend most of their time talking rather than listening. While each person is speaking, the other person is spending his or her time formulating his or her rebuttal. Often, people judge another's statement based on their own point of view or values, without considering the other person's perspective. As a result, people hear what they want to hear rather than what the speaker intended to communicate.

Emotions also come into play. Once a conflict has escalated emotionally, it is very difficult to listen objectively. It is the manager's job as mediator to listen objectively to each side, ensure that both or all parties are listening, and that each person has a chance to state his or her side of the situation. The manager can accomplish this by asking open-ended questions, showing empathy for both sides, using feedback to reinforce what you have heard, keeping emotions under control and being non-judgmental.

Deal with Conflict Collaboratively

Get all involved parties in a neutral/private environment to facilitate conflict resolution. Ask each participant to provide a written statement in advance describing the situation in his or her own words. These statements will give the mediating manager insight into the possible causes of the conflict.

During the session, give each party a chance to tell his or her side of the situation without interruption. Analyze the problem from each person’s perspective and collaboratively develop solutions. Agree to meet in the future to check on the progress of the solution.

Clearly State Expectations for Future Behavior

Clearly describe the damage to the organization as a result of employee conflict and the consequences for future inappropriate behavior.

It is important to remember that the manager's role in conflict resolution is that of mediator. The manager must remain impartial and cannot enter into conflict resolution if he or she has preconceived opinions or ideas about who is right or wrong in the situation. If the manager finds that he or she cannot be impartial, that person should assign the task of the conflict resolution session to a third impartial party such as a human resources manager.

Mediating a conflict is challenging, but as a manager or supervisor, the role of mediator comes with your territory. Your willingness to appropriately intervene sets the stage for your own success. You craft a work environment that enables the success of the people who work there. I believe you can learn to do it. Conflict mediation is an example of "practice makes perfect."

About the Author

Debbie Zmorenski

Deborah K. Zmorenski, MBA, is the co-owner and senior partner of Leader’s Strategic Advantage Inc., an Orlando, Fla.-based consulting firm. During her 34-year career with the Walt Disney ... Read More

Choose Continuous Improvement over Lean Manufacturing

Article extract from ReliablePlant newsletter:
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/29408/lean-continuous-improvement

Some organizations misuse lean manufacturing to overwork their people and reduce the overall headcount. Let me assure you, I am not arguing to counter the fact that reducing the headcount will save money. In the short term, it most certainly will save money. However, this savings in headcount does come at a higher cost.

Some managers seek headcount reduction because they associate fewer operators with increased profits. Elimination of headcount for this reason yields poor results culturally. Soon after launching a campaign such as this, operators will start noticing the intent. This will lead to a refusal to cooperate with any effort to reduce headcount and eliminate waste. The operators will begin to adamantly resist changes because they are fearful of losing their job or possibly contributing to a co-worker’s job loss. This causes stress, conflict, finger-pointing and eventually failure. It also is a surefire way to pit management against the shop floor.

This lack of understanding has left a bad taste in the mouths of many shop-floor employees. Likewise, it has also contributed to the conquered attitude of many managers because they have attempted this idea of “lean” before and have seen it fail more than once. Understandably, this is frustrating for an organization’s leadership as well as other employees. It leads me to the opinion that the word “lean” might need to be eliminated from our vocabulary for a while.

I think when leaders focus strictly on lean, they inevitably pay more attention to the dollar numbers. While the dollar numbers are important, there are other elements within an organization that far outweigh the bottom dollar. These elements create awe-inspiring flexibility and opportunity for future growth.

It is my opinion that running a lean organization is actually a by-product of continuous improvement philosophies, specifically the eighth waste (the underutilization of people). When you focus your sights on lean and lean alone, you miss the bigger picture.

Culture is the most important element to true organizational maturity. Continuous improvement philosophy zeroes in on culture and stimulates its development. It focuses on the people and the success of the organizational team. Its aim is to involve and engage everyone, to educate and stimulate the minds of the people. It requires everyone’s engagement, commitment and trust. It is culture-driven and will help the company grow. Everyone should be trained on its ideals and philosophies.

For a continuous improvement organization to truly thrive, leadership must dedicate at least 85 percent of its efforts to the development of employees through training, influence and on-the-job training. Once the majority of the organization understands the philosophy, then and only then is it time to move to the next step. Otherwise, resistance will remain at the doorstep.

The remaining 15 percent can then be dedicated to implementing the actual tools and engaging employees. The employees who own the process need to make the change and improve the organization’s current state (with assistance from a trained continuous improvement team). Not only does this encourage them, but it also increases the chance that the change will be sustained and standardized.

Organizational leaders must be careful not to put the cart before the horse. You cannot simply read or benchmark other companies and expect that you can photocopy that into your organization. You have to remember a picture is a snapshot in time. It does not tell you what happened before the picture was taken. Therefore, you cannot expect significant, highly profitable changes too fast. You cannot have the baby without going through the labor, so to speak.

Let’s get “lean” out of our heads and start communicating continuous improvement. It’s broader, includes everyone (especially the operators) and will provide long-term gains. Let’s train, empower and engage rather than cut time, rebalance and lay off. 

About the Author

Eric Bigelow

Eric Bigelow is an industrial engineer and continuous improvement professional. He is currently a lean coordinator located in Spirit Lake, Iowa. He has trained numerous individuals in lean ... Read More

A New Look at Criticality Analysis for Machinery Lubrication

Article extract from ReliablePlant newsletter:
http://www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/29346/machinery-criticality-analysis

For decades, reliability scholars have been stressing the importance of prioritizing new maintenance thrusts and investments based on need. The word they like to use is "criticality." For any given machine, how critical is its reliability? What if it failed suddenly and catastrophically? What would be the consequences - lost production, expensive repairs, fatality? Criticality is the logical starting point for all reliability initiatives.

There are many different ways to enhance reliability and improve the quality of maintenance. The best options should be risk-based. After all, if it doesn’t reduce risk, why do it? Why spend an incremental dollar to enhance a machine’s reliability if it doesn’t yield multiple dollars in return?

There’s also priority. What should be done first, second and third, and what should not be done at all? How do you know which machines return big dollars for enhanced reliability, which machines return marginal dollars and which machines return nothing at all?

Once you understand machine criticality and a machine’s risk profile, you can work smarter to customize improvements. For guidance, look to the Pareto principle, which states that 20 percent of the machines cause 80 percent of the reliability problems. Which machines are these?

In addition, consider that 20 percent of the causes of failure are responsible for 80 percent of the occurrences of failure. Which causes are these? It’s about precision - precision maintenance and precision lubrication. It’s also knowing how to make wise, risk-informed choices.

I’ve written previously about the Optimum Reference State (ORS). This is the prescribed state of machine configuration, operating conditions and maintenance activities required to achieve and sustain specific reliability objectives. As stated, defining the ORS requires a definition of the specific reliability objectives for a given machine. Defining the reliability objectives demands an understanding of failure modes and machine criticality.

This reminds me of the plant manager who told me years ago that he decided the best way to solve his lubrication problems was to put synthetic lubricants in every machine. Do you think he got the result he sought? Does paying a premium for synthetics guarantee a premium return in machine reliability and maintenance cost reduction? Do synthetics offer forgiveness for negligent and shoddy maintenance? Is this wise decision-making?

Understand the Reliability-Risk Connection

The probability of machine failure needs to be inversely proportional to risk. There’s no better example than commercial aviation. Because the consequences of failure are extremely high (death), the probability of failure must be equally low (extreme reliability). It is the only practical means to hedge risk. Those responsible for maintenance usually have little control over the consequences of failure (often limited only to early detection technology). However, reliability maintainers frequently have considerable control over the probability of failure. Indeed, you can use risk and criticality to develop a master plan for lubrication-enabled machine reliability. This will be the focus of this article.

Let’s begin with a list of common lubrication and oil analysis decisions (all attributes of the ORS) that can be customized (optimized) by understanding failure modes and machine criticality:

• Lubricant selection, e.g., premium vs. economy-formulated lubricants
• Filtration, including things such as filter quality, pore size, capture efficiency, location and flow rate
• Lubricant preventive maintenance (daily PMs) and inspection strategy
• Lubricant delivery method selection and use (e.g., circulating, auto-lube, mist, etc.)
• Oil analysis (which machines are included and which are not?)
• Oil sampling frequency (weekly, monthly, quarterly, never)
• Laboratory and test slate selection
• Oil analysis alarms and limits

All of these decisions and activities must be within the scope of the Optimum Reference State. For this reason, the importance of criticality should not be taken lightly. However, a practical means of assigning a value to criticality, customized to machine lubrication and tribology, has largely been elusive. In fact, the fields of lubrication and tribology raise unique issues and questions related to criticality that aren’t typically addressed and aren’t common to other types of machinery.

Calculating Overall Machine Criticality

Overall Machine Criticality (OMC) is a risk-profile assessment that can be calculated to a single numerical value. The OMC is what you seek to know and control. The lower the OMC, the lower the risk. The OMC is the multiplied product of two factors: the Machine Criticality Factor (MCF) and the Failure Occurrence Factor (FOF). The MCF relates to the consequences of machine failure, which combines both mission criticality and repair costs, while the FOF relates to the probability of machine failure. This probability is highly influenced by maintenance and lubrication practices and therefore is far more controllable.

Figure 1. Machine Criticality Factor (MCF) (Relates to the consequences of machine failure)

Machine Criticality Factor

A simple method for estimating the Machine Criticality Factor is shown in Figure 1. It requires an understanding of mission criticality and repair costs. While you could call these SWAGs (educated guesses), it is far better to guess using a logical method than to apply dartboard science or do nothing at all.

The MCF is scaled 1 to 10, with 10 corresponding to extreme criticality (high risk). You start by answering the question of mission criticality. Machines that are process-critical can accumulate huge production losses as a result of sudden and prolonged failure. Extremely high mission criticality relates to safety (injury or death). In the event there is minimal business interruption or safety risk, there might still be high repair costs. Although many processes have redundant systems or standby equipment in the event of failure, these systems don’t mitigate the cost of repair, which can be millions of dollars in some circumstances.

Figure 2. Use this table to determine the Failure Occurrence Factor,
corresponding to the probability of failure.

The final consideration is the current or potential use of early detection technology (predictive maintenance) to annunciate alarms of impending or precipitous failure events. In such cases, both downtime and the cost of repair can be substantially reduced. Oil analysis (wear debris analysis), vibration analysis, bearing metal temperatures, proximity probes, motor current, etc., are all technologies that can offer real benefit in reducing the Machine Criticality Factor (see the adjusted scale at the bottom of Figure 1, which applies only if effective early warning systems are used).

Failure Occurrence Factor

As mentioned previously, the Failure Occurrence Factor relates to the probability of machine failure. This can be estimated from the machine’s failure history or statistical analysis of a group of identical machines. Machines that are inherently prone to failure (bad actors) get the highest rating on a scale of 1 to 10. High FOFs usually correspond to extreme and chronic conditions (see the table in Figure 2). If you have good historical knowledge of the machine’s reliability, then use the descriptive rating scheme (Method A) under the “Machine Reliability History is Known” heading. If machine reliability is unknown or uncertain, go to the Reliability Elements Quotient (REQ) in Figure 3 (Method B). This is a scoring system that shows what causes and controls failure in lubricated machines. Most importantly, it reveals the fundamental strategy for optimizing machine reliability.

Reliability Elements Quotient

The REQ (Figure 3) tallies five critical elements to arrive at a customized composite score that will be used for the FOF in Figure 2. It gets down into the weeds of what causes a greater or lesser likelihood of machine failure. Let’s discuss these elements, starting at the top and working our way down.

Figure 3. An example of a pre-ORS Reliability Elements Quotient.

• Machine Duty - Machine duty is a compilation of operational conditions that can induce premature machine failure. Machines that score high are those that run at or beyond rated loads (catalog loads), operate at high pressure, run at high speed, are exposed to high shock loads or duty cycles, and have other similar mechanical conditions.
• Lubricant Quality/Performance - Good lubricant selection extends machine life, while poor lubricant selection shortens it. The benefit of good lubricants not only reduces friction and wear but can also protect the machine from corrosion, air entrainment, deposit formation and lubricant starvation. Therefore, lubricant quality directly influences the probability of failure.
• Lubrication Effectiveness - More machines fail due to poor lubrication than poor lubricants. Lubrication relates to a range of activities and conditions including relubrication frequency, relubrication method, controlling lubricant levels, lubrication procedures, inspection methods and contamination control. For most plants, there is a large gap between doing lubrication and doing lubrication right.
• Fluid Environment Severity - This is largely contamination control related. Contamination compromises the quality of the lubricant and the state of lubrication. It relates to what the machine is exposed to in its work environment (and the severity of exposure), plus the effectiveness of the machine in excluding and removing contaminants from the lubricant. Machines that are bombarded with dirt, water, corrosive materials, ambient heat/cold and process chemicals have high fluid environment severity.
• Early Warning Systems - Early warning technology also impacts the probability of failure. This is done by catching incipient failures or root-cause conditions that are the precursors to failures. Oil analysis and comprehensive daily machine inspections are extremely effective at providing early warning to a host of problems.

The Reliability Elements Quotient is a scorecard that counts all five factors. For each element, the score range goes left to right, from very low (far left) to extremely high (far right). The numerical scale changes for each factor. The best way to use the REQ is to circle the assigned score for each factor and then write the score in the box to the right. The total score is tallied at the bottom. In the example, this total is 8, which designates high failure probability.

Overall Machine Criticality Matrix and
De-Risking Your Plant

The OMC is probably best viewed as a matrix. This is shown in Figure 4 with the MCF on the X-axis and the FOF on the Y-axis. The intersecting box reveals the OMC value (multiplication of the MCF and the FOF). The matrix has five color zones which are actually risk zones (the location of these zones on the grid can be customized). The highest risk is represented by the color red. Next is amber, followed by yellow, then green and finally blue (low risk).

Figure 4. The Overall Machine Criticality (OMC) matrix includes the Machine Criticality Factor
on the X-axis, the Failure Occurrence Factor on the Y-axis and five risk
zones, each represented by a different color.

Machines that fall in the amber or red zones are targeted for immediate remediation. This is best done by reducing risk values from one or more of the four “addressable” reliability elements (see Figure 3), which are subcomponents of the FOF. These are lubricant quality/performance, lubrication effectiveness, fluid environment severity and effectiveness of early warning systems.

Figure 5. This table shows how the ORS performance attributes directly influence the
elements in the Reliability Elements Quotient (REQ).

This is exactly the purpose of the Optimum Reference State. Figure 5 shows how key ORS performance attributes influence the addressable reliability elements that in turn influence Overall Machine Criticality. Everything is connected.
Additionally, failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) can be used to assign priority to ORS attribute improvements. For more information on FMEA as it applies to machinery lubrication, see www.machinerylubrication.com/Read/17/fmea-process.

Figure 6. This OMC matrix illustrates how improvements in lubricant
selection, lubrication methods, contamination control and oil analysis
brought a machine’s risk profile down from 40 to 5.

It makes sense that all reliability initiatives need to adjust (improve) the OMC. This typically involves a range of modifications to the ORS performance attributes as shown in Figure 5. These can include machinery modifications, lubricant selection changes, people skills improvements, procedure modifications and others. “Optimizing” the modification master plan through FMEA and criticality analysis achieves the lowest risk profile or OMC at the lowest possible cost.

An example of this is seen in Figures 6 and 7. By making modifications to lubricant selection, lubrication methods, contamination control and oil analysis, the Failure Occurrence Factor improved from 8 to 1. For a machine that has a Machine Criticality Factor of 5, this brought the risk profile down from 40 (amber, high-risk zone) to 5 (blue, low-risk zone).

Figure 7. This post-ORS Reliability Elements Quotient shows how the Failure Occurrence Factor
improved from 8 to 1 after several modifications were made.

What It All Means

In the January-February 2013 issue of Machinery Lubrication, I wrote about the Technology Adoption Cycle and the impediments to adoption of the Optimum Reference State. People, especially managers, “go with what they know.” If they don’t understand risk and reward as it relates to machine reliability, they will shy away from acceptance and adoption. The state of lubrication continues “business as usual.” This is a curse indeed, but one that can be remedied.

Figure 8. Illustration of how bringing a machine to
the Optimum Reference State can reduce risk.

An excellent place to start is by developing a current risk profile of your critical machinery (pre-ORS). This reveals the opportunity and all the low-hanging fruit that no one has seemed to notice. Optimum is undefinable without understanding risk. By using the tools described here, you not only can understand risk (criticality and occurrence), but you can also have a solid plan for remediation to de-risk your plant. Don’t fail to capitalize on the riches (collect the fruit) that can be gained by transformation to the Optimum Reference State.

.

Machinery Lubrication (4/2013)

About the Author

Jim Fitch

Jim Fitch, a founder and CEO of Noria Corporation, has a wealth of experience in lubrication, oil analysis, and machinery failure investigations. He has advised hundreds of companies on developing ... Read More

Develop Better Managers by Coaching

Article extract from ReliablePlant newsletter:
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/29217/coaching-better-managers

Performance coaching is not about disciplinary action, nor is it about accountability (although it may promote accountability in the long term). It is really about leadership development — teaching your team of supervisors, managers and leaders the skills and behaviors that are necessary to perform their jobs as efficiently as possible in order to get the best results for themselves and the company.

Performance coaching is not about telling your management team what to do; it is about telling them how to get the best results from their people and processes. If you are experiencing mediocre productivity, ongoing conflict or high turnover, you should look first at your management team. They are the root cause for success and failure. There is an old Chinese proverb that says, "For every hundred men hacking away at the branches of a diseased tree, only one will stoop to inspect the roots."

It is surprising to me the number of managers and executives I meet who have no idea how to conduct performance coaching sessions. While facilitating an executive coaching session with a vice president, she told me that she had continually written her managers up and that they continued to deliver substandard performance. Her frustration was evident, but writing people up is self-defeating when you have not performed due diligence in the supervisor's or manager's performance training. It does not teach the skills the employee or manager needs to move forward. It only punishes them for making mistakes and not performing up to expected standards.

Most supervisors and managers want to do a good job, but many do not have the skills to deal with the complicated workforce issues prevalent in today's organizations. Many supervisors and managers are learning as they go. This process is slow, ineffective and costly to organizations, as supervisors and managers bungle their way through each day, trying to do the right things.

To effectively conduct performance coaching sessions, you must first understand the root cause of poor performance. Performance is a function of both ability and motivation. For example, someone with 100-percent motivation and 75-percent ability can achieve good to above average performance. However, someone with 25-percent ability will most likely not be able to perform to expected standards no matter how highly motivated they are to succeed. In the latter case, you will have to identify a strategic plan to provide this person with the skills he or she needs to succeed, or assess whether he or she is in the right position.

Key signs that low ability may be the root cause of poor performance include:

• Evidence of strong effort despite poor performance
• Lack of improvement over time despite ongoing coaching and training

Performance Coaching for Management Development

Coaching to develop your management team allows leaders to leverage the organization's human capital, creating a competitive advantage. Supervisors and managers have a direct impact on how employees feel about working for the organization.

"Once the economy turns around, disgruntled employees will certainly begin to consider a job change," said Lori Dernavich, a business advisor on workplace performance solutions and founder of Lori Dernavich LLC.

Coaching and counseling for management development ranges from helping poor performers improve to capitalizing on high-potential supervisors and managers by keeping them challenged and encouraging them to continuously improve their skills.

Coaching is not a one-way street. Both the leader and the supervisor or manager share the responsibility for positive results. Highly effective performance coaches have the following characteristics:

• Base the coaching relationship on trust
• Are optimists about human nature
• Give people opportunities to take risks and learn from their mistakes
• Practice effective listening skills
• Speak candidly
• Encourage personal accountability and ownership
• Know their strengths and weaknesses and continually strive to leverage strengths and overcome weaknesses
• Are continuous learners

Below are three key strategies for effective performance coaching.

Create a Culture of Involvement and Ownership

Tactics include:

1. Provide the knowledge, skills, tools, resources and education to ensure the supervisor's or manager's success.
2. Share the vision, mission and business objectives, ensuring that they understand where they fit in to the big picture.
3. Set clear standards for results and behaviors.
4. Reward and recognize results and behaviors.

Provide Challenging Assignments

Tactics include:

1. Assess the supervisor's or manager's abilities.
2. Make assignments that align with their abilities.
3. Provide clear direction and expectations.
4. Remove roadblocks and barriers.
5. Trust them to accomplish the task.
6. Reward and recognize effort and results.

Provide Ongoing Coaching

Tactics include:

1. Provide constructive criticism. Meet monthly to discuss the supervisor's or manager's progress and areas where improvement is needed.
2. Document the monthly conversations.
3. Remove barriers and roadblocks.
4. Provide tools and resources.
5. Use effective listening and feedback skills.

Coaches as Mentors

I am frequently asked about the difference between coaches and mentors. It is true that great coaches often become dedicated mentors. The definition of a mentor is: "A person who gives another person the benefit of his or her years of experience and/or education. This is experience that is shared in such a way that the mentor helps to develop a mentee's skills and abilities, benefiting the mentee and the organization." However, there are clear differences between a coach and a mentor. Below is a quick guide to mentoring for improved performance.

Why Mentoring is Different than Coaching

Coaching is not the same as mentoring. Mentoring is concerned with the development of the whole person and driven by the person's own work/life goals. It is usually unstructured and informal. Coaching is much more about achieving specific objectives in a particular way. Coaching is also more formal and more structured, usually around a coaching process or methodology.

In other words, mentoring is less skill-based and more of a relationship-based process. A good mentoring relationship is identified by the willingness and capability of both parties to ask questions, challenge assumptions and disagree.

The mentor is far less likely to have a direct-line relationship with the mentee, and in a mentoring relationship, this distance is desirable. Mentoring is rarely a critical part of an individual's job role but rather an extra element that rewards the mentor with fresh thinking as well as the opportunity to transfer knowledge and experience to a less experienced colleague, peer or employee. If you are interested in becoming a mentor, the following tips may prove useful.

Tips for Effective Mentoring

• The mentee has no direct-line reporting to the mentor. This fosters trust, and the mentee feels more comfortable in sharing uncertainties about his or her abilities, creating free-flowing, open communication.


• The mentor/mentee relationship is mutually satisfying. The mentor gets the satisfaction of watching someone grow as a result of his or her insights. The mentee gains a feeling of being valued, receiving beneficial direction and attention from someone who is respected and admired.


• The intensity of the relationship is matched. It is taking up actual and mental time in proportions with which both people are comfortable. This time commitment is flexible as the mentee's needs change (e.g., there may be several meetings in a short period of time during a very challenging period, then none for months).


• At any time, either party can stop the relationship and the mentoring process. There is no obligation for continuance.


• The mentee is not a protégé. It is not a teacher-pupil relationship, nor does the mentee (necessarily) have the patronage of the mentor.


• An effective mentor gives wise counsel, and the mentee feels comfortable speaking on issues that may be sensitive. Once this trust is developed, the mentor can give advice or assist with tough recommendations.


• The mentor is not mentoring two people at the same time who have a close working relationship. Discretion and confidentiality are paramount. The rules of engagement are stated up front with an agreement between the mentor and the mentee on who should be aware of the mentoring relationship.


• The obligation for continuing is two-sided. When the mentor feels he or she has value to add and the mentee is getting something from the relationship, the mentoring may go on indefinitely. Otherwise, either side can end it without justification.


• Mentoring programs are about guidance and facilitation rather than formal training.

Becoming a mentor is a personal choice. Learning to effectively provide performance coaching is a necessary skill for retaining top talent within the management and front-line employee ranks. It is critical that leadership within organizations do everything in their power to give management the skills they need to successfully get results through people and processes.

About the Author

Debbie Zmorenski

Deborah K. Zmorenski, MBA, is the co-owner and senior partner of Leader’s Strategic Advantage Inc., an Orlando, Fla.-based consulting firm. During her 34-year career with the Walt Disney ... Read More

Why Improvement Efforts Fail

Article extract from ReliablePlant newsletter:
http://www.reliableplant.com/Read/29248/improvement-efforts-fail

Why do improvement efforts fail or perhaps not sustain the recent gains? There are many reasons, but those most often stated are "lack of commitment" and not "following the process." But why is there lack of commitment, and why aren't processes followed? Here are a few of the most common reasons:

Too Much Focus on Tools Instead of People

Analytical tools and improvement process steps are important, but people are more important. It's not about "selling" them or using "change management" tools to have them accept whatever the "really smart" people have come up with. It's about involving them (all of them) and having them own the process.

Communication Not Emphasized, Structured

Without communication, paranoia develops between work groups, shifts, departments, individuals, etc. This destroys involvement and ownership. Casual (now and again) conversations and major presentations are only a small part of what it takes. Communication must be structured and orchestrated, part of the everyday routine, and flow both ways.

Not Knowing and Respecting What is Already in Place

Every organization does some things well, and the people there have pride in their particular organization (despite what they might tell you). To ignore this is insulting and arrogant. Too many times the "everything here is wrong" attitude is evident (and sometimes outright stated) by program "experts." Setting up "negative waves" like this never helps. Use what is in place as a start.

Developing the Elite vs. the Majority

Improvement is an "everyone" thing. It's too easy to just work with the bright, energetic people and count on them to carry it all. Most people are hesitant or unwilling to accept what they haven’t had some involvement in developing or improving. Besides, this ignores a huge pool of capability. Everyone brings something to the table, but some may be unwilling to share for many reasons, such as their past ideas may have been criticized or not welcomed, there are peer-pressure issues, trust issues, etc. Sincere, routine involvement efforts can overcome these obstacles.

Improvement Events vs. Routine Improvement

While big events are good at generating interest and knocking out a lot of work in a short time, the heart and soul of sustaining improvement is getting a solid, everyday, routine process to have everyone continually dealing with the many small opportunities.

Focusing on Solving Specific Issues Rather than Developing People

It's easy to get absorbed in solving specific issues and using specific problem-solving techniques instead of using the issue-solving process as a way to develop people. Of course, there will always be plenty of issues and opportunities to deal with. The scarcer commodity is the capability to deal with them. Even rarer is the ready motivation to do so.

About the Author

John Crossan

Currently working as a consultant, John Crossan retired after spending 30-plus years with the Clorox Company. His roles for much of the past 14 years were mainly focused on improving operations by ... Read More