Emerson Process Management - CSI

DoctorKnow Application Paper

Title: Benchmarking, Evaluation and Continous Improvement Source/ Jef Wilson Author: Product: General Technology: Vibration Classification: Benchmarking, Evaluation and Continous Improvement Jeff Wilson CSI Reliability-Based Maintenance Team Introduction: Typically industrial Maintenance Departments are analogous to community fire departments. Production equipment ceases to operate (fire) so maintenance is frantically called (alarm) to complete repairs in a hurry to restore the machine to an operational condition (put out the fire) allowing production to resume. This type of behavior is the symptom of a more difficult problem. Industry is reacting to machinery breakdowns instead of practicing a balance of preventive (periodbased), predictive(condition-based) and proactive (root-cause correction) maintenance practices known at CSI as the Reliability-Based MaintenanceTM (RBM) strategy. How is this condition avoided? Many leaders in chemical, power, base metals and electronics industries produced documented 1992 savings on average of $265,000 utilizing thermography, $1,055,000 with vibration analysis, $277,000 with oil analysis, and $600,000 with various electrical condition testing. These technologies represent basic predictive maintenance techniques. Combine these predictive technologies with a refined preventive maintenance program and proactive maintenance activities to develop a Reliability-Based Maintenance Program. Typical well organized RBM Programs can easily return between 10 and 30 times the investment in the program each year. Invariably, during an evaluation the comment "All of this technology is nice, but we don't have time." crops up. What this really means is "We are too busy fighting the fire with a garden hose to call the fire department." This is where benchmarking becomes beneficial. Why Benchmark? Benchmarking is a process of comparing practices and characteristics of an organization to the best in industry. With comparison to the best in each area of interest, a rapid improvement can be generated by learning from their experience. Benefits of Benchmarking include: - Realistic view of an organization's capabilities.
http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...01446512C60EAE71852565A20060A5CA?OpenDocument (1 de 5)05/07/2010 16:19:58

Emerson Process Management - CSI

- Unbiased comparison by outside personnel. - A Continuous Improvement Plan as a guideline to Benchmark status. - Recommendations based on experience and Benchmark data base.

Basis for Benchmark Survey and Evaluation: Over the past four years CSI has sponsored the Predictive Maintenance Program of the Year Award. During this process several characteristics were common to the finalist each year. These characteristics were also noticed through out several of CSI's customers who were realizing significant returns on their investments relating to condition monitoring programs. By researching, correlating and categorizing these characteristics, CSI established the Benchmarks. The ReliabilityBased Maintenance Benchmark Survey and Evaluation examines eight categories: Management Support &Plant Culture Performance Measurements Program Organization &Communication Vibration Analysis Program Other Predictive Technologies Preventive Maintenance Program Proactive Technologies Training, Development &Certification Several facets of each of these categories are examined during the on-site evaluation period. The Benchmark Survey is used to provide a numerical score for basic comparison with the Benchmarks. The score in relation to the Benchmark in each category provides a basic starting point to initiate the Continuous Improvement Plan. The development of a customized Continuous Improvement Plan (CIP) is heavily influenced by the experience of the members of CSI's RBM Team. On site evaluations provide first hand knowledge of details of operations along with any restrictions under which maintenance departments must operate. Size of work force, product, equipment and work force ability are some of the many factors considered when constructing a CIP to achieve Benchmark returns on maintenance dollars. Comparisons within industrial segments are useful to the process, but are not the sole criteria for evaluation. Outstanding maintenance practices are easily transportable across segment boundaries. An organizational plan that works well in a heavy metal process may be ideal for a textile factory or devastating to the smaller mill across town. By customizing recommendations for the individual site, a plan that has the greatest probability of success is generated. How detailed should and evaluation be? The scope and detail of a CIP should be commensurate with the capabilities of the maintenance organization being surveyed. Evaluations can be conducted to support CIP's with varying scopes and focuses. An initial evaluation at the plant level may be used to develop broad guidelines for an organization initiating modern maintenance practices. While an advanced plant the guidelines may
http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...01446512C60EAE71852565A20060A5CA?OpenDocument (2 de 5)05/07/2010 16:19:58

Emerson Process Management - CSI

be targeted at raising up-time by 2% after eliminating redundancies between the preventive and predictive programs. Both with the same basic objective: move closer to a World-Class Maintenance Organization. They just happen to be at different stages of the process. A plant with no preventive, predictive or proactive maintenance programs will be low in the Benchmark scores. This plant should receive a CIP geared toward moving deliberately to develop basic organization, skills and basic technological utilization. The scope of this evaluation covers the entire plant organization with emphasis on information flow, plant culture and technologies to provide a significant reduction in maintenance overtime or amount of emergent repairs. The Maintenance Department will receive a great deal of basic guidance on establishing and manning a program that will be the basis for substantial change in maintenance practices. While a plant with a relatively new program will rank higher in Benchmark scores, an emphasis will be placed on communications, maintenance procedures and details of technological implementation. This plant will have seen initial returns of preventive and predictive programs. The CIP for a plant at this stage will focus on measuring returns, program success and short falls in order to provide a basis for directing the teams future efforts. Maintaining the enthusiasm and building equipment history to support truly proactive maintenance practices are targets of this CIP. Organizations with mature programs have established the communications, procedures, technical skill, information base and professional reputations to support a truly proactive maintenance mission. By exhibiting the ability to analyze recurring problems and produce technically sound solutions that resolve the root cause, the maintenance organization has developed into a fully productive and profitable segment of the plant. Benchmark scores in this plant will be well above the mean. The CIP for this plant targets analysis methods and required information along with interface with engineering organizations to produce concrete results from the recommendations. I cases where multiple facilities exist within a division, an evaluation of all sites within a short period will offer a solid picture of the divisional capabilities. Each facility probably has a strength and a weakness. Normally multiple facilities will not all be strong in the same area, so much can be gained by comparing practices. Look at a whole division and transport ideas from within and from without. One option to develop a Benchmark Organization in a compressed time frame is to develop a longterm partnership and arrange for concentrated skill and knowledge transfer. CSI's Rapid Start-Up program sets a goal of Benchmark practices within twelve to eighteen months from establishment of program. The process is initiated with a week long evaluation of the target plant and detailed development of a schedule for implementation of required technical and organizational knowledge. This includes intensive on-site services by specialist certified in the use of the technologies of interest to rapidly develop skills in plant personnel. As would be expected the level of effort for a Rapid Start-Up is much higher than convention Continuous Improvement Plans. As individual facilities grow in capability, the corporate offices provide opportunities to gain even more effectiveness. Examine leadership policies, procurement policies and corporate cooperation to build stronger maintenance capabilities. Evaluations focused on corporate practices are complementary to plant and divisional evaluations.

http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...01446512C60EAE71852565A20060A5CA?OpenDocument (3 de 5)05/07/2010 16:19:58

Emerson Process Management - CSI

Execution of a Survey and Evaluation: Evaluation of a plant's organization and leadership policies as they relate to the maintenance function and the effectiveness of the maintenance organization at providing reliable production capacity is the goal of a Benchmark Survey and Evaluation. Gathering information on the personalities, industrial relations, skill level and training programs is very important to the development of a workable CIP. Experience in varied maintenance environments is indispensable when evaluating an organization in a short period on site. Due to the limited time devoted to the evaluator by plant personnel, preparation is essential to conducting an efficient survey. Do not waste valuable time with workers searching for the essential questions. Prior to commencing an evaluation, develop an estimation of for expected practices for leading organizations of comparable size and industry segment. Also develop a mental list of outstanding practices. Seldom does an organization combine very poor with very good practices. Once the basic category of organization is established detailed questioning can begin. Once on site, time is at a premium. Talk with a large cross-section of personnel from the line mechanics to the plant manager. Only then does a true picture of the Maintenance Department's reputation and contribution to the health of the plant become clear. Do not simply open up a questionnaire and begin to recite questions. This is a waste of time as everyone resents being tested. Find the information through conversation, this is why evaluators must be experienced. There is a wealth of information available, if it can be recognized. Between interviews review documentation pertaining to the operation and flow of information within the maintenance department. How effectively are information systems and maintenance technologies utilized? Are maintenance information systems one way streets where volumes of information are entered, but nothing ever returns? Are expensive technologies being ineffectively employed? Tour the plant look for unusual production lines. Look for differences between the manner in which jobs are being performed. Is there a good reason for the difference? Look for frustration. Look for fluid leaks or debris piling up. Stop and ask stupid questions. They are easier to answer and put people at ease. Ask questions for which you already know the answer. This acts as a calibration to assure mutual understanding of terms and subjects. Talk to any one and everyone. It is not unusual to move from a mechanic who just crawled out from under a conveyor then proceed to the Plant Managers' office. Does the plant manager frequent the maintenance shops? How often do the line mechanics receive feed back from anyone other than the foreman? These are telling question, when asked to both the mechanic and the Plant Manager. All of these are good questions and represent the tip of the ice berg. Once the information has been gathered, now correlate the different views. Does it sound like the interviews were conducted in different plants? Now the problem becomes more clear. Any one can recommend a canned CIP based on a numerical score. That is not the point of Benchmarking. The point is to create a plan that has a high probability of success for the individual plant. Whether the primary factor is size, capacity, age of work force, education of work force, product or competitive position it is
http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...01446512C60EAE71852565A20060A5CA?OpenDocument (4 de 5)05/07/2010 16:19:58

Emerson Process Management - CSI

incumbent on the evaluator to find this out and build a CIP around the crucial factors. Although recommendations may be similar from plant to plant the timing and degree may vary. In one group, the plant size ranged from a work force of 1100 down to 75. The CIP's need to be similar since they were in the same group, but they were diverse in execution and degree. Some CIP's will be complex enough for personal presentation to get difficult points across, others will be made up of one sentence recommendations. Conclusion: Benchmarking and Continuous Improvement Plans go hand in hand. The Benchmark Survey provides the initial point along with the desired end point. The Continuous Improvement Plan provides the path between the two, which will be different for each plant and will require dedication to reach the destination. Yet the rewards are gathered through out the journey because each step is designed to lead to its own return. When combined as a whole the combined rewards are enormous. All contents copyright 1998 - 2006, Computational Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.compsys.com/DRKNOW/APLPAPR.NSF/apw...01446512C60EAE71852565A20060A5CA?OpenDocument (5 de 5)05/07/2010 16:19:58