Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Understanding Asset Related Criticality: Managing asset by criticality (Part 3)

 Darrin Wikoff shares the final installment in his three part series on Asset Criticality.

MANAGING ASSETS BY CRITICALITY

Once we understand the meaning behind the number, the criticality analysis model becomes a tool used to develop the asset management plans.  For those assets that are within the top 20%, reliability specialists will typically proceed with a Failure Modes Effects Analysis (FMEA) to assess the risk priority associated with each type of failure, and to determine the appropriate corrective actions.  But we again must consider the critical characteristics that are common throughout the organization, across all assets, critical or not.  In doing so, asset management becomes a plant wide process.  If “Mission Impact” is commonly critical, than Engineering may need to considered equipment redundancy plans.  For those organizations that find “Spares Lead Time” particularly critical, a Materials Management improvement program should be initiated.  Those organizations that struggle to manage the cost of “Corrective Maintenance History”, Maintenance should evaluate existing preventive maintenance effectiveness or examine the methods by which work is executed.
When managing asset-related risks, we only have a few fundamental decisions we can make, control it, eliminate it, or accept the risk. Understanding how non-conformances impact your organization’s ability to meet strategic objectives is the first step towards establishing an economical asset management system. To learn more about Asset Criticality Analysis or Asset Management Planning, please contact me at DWikoff@eruditiollc.com or visit us at www.eruditiollc.com.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Understanding Asset Related Risk: Part 2 What can be learned from the number?

Darrin Wikoff shares the second post in the series on criticality.
WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM THE NUMBER?
This is the point where most asset management processes go wrong.  Many models in use today will set a criticality ranking based solely on the scoring range.  For example, an asset which scores between 75 and 100 may be considered “critical”, while an asset that scores less than 25 may be “expendable”.  This practice undermines the entire concept of criticality analysis.  The organization might as well give each asset a number from 1 to 5 and call all things equal.  This grouping of scores provides no meaningful data for establishing or revising asset management plans, nor does it delineate between “critical” assets to illustrate which assets are regulatory controlled, mission critical, or simply unreliable.
We need to recognize that all assets are not created equal.  We also need to remember that the model we are trying to implement is an “analysis”, which by definition means to scrutinize or examine the data collected to gain knowledge for the purpose of making intelligent, data-driven decisions.  The results of our analysis should not only identify those assets that are within the top 20%, but should also indicate the leading characteristic that makes each asset critical.
Using the Table 1 example, we might conclude that the “No. 12 Cooling Water Pump” is a critical asset as it falls within the top 20% guidelines, but the score of ‘80’ alone tells us nothing about how to manage this “critical” asset.  Because we categorized the risk attributes, we are able to quickly identify that by reducing the consequences associated with a single-point-failure, through Single Minute Exchange of Die (SMED), ready service spares, or properly managed critical spares inventory, we can lower the criticality ranking, allowing Maintenance and Operations to focus their efforts on the truly unreliable, unpredictable assets.
The last post next week will talk about "managing assets by criticality"

Thursday, July 24, 2014

Understanding Asset Related Risk: a three part series

In this weeks post Darrin Wikoff shares the first of of a series on criticality.
Although most asset management processes are based on managing risk, many organizations fail to fully understand the meaning behind an “asset criticality” ranking.  Most asset management professionals will tell you that the “critical” assets have the greatest impact on the plant’s mission, be it production rate, quality of product produced, or cost per product produced.  Acting under this mindset alone, most professionals overlook the single most important characteristic that makes each asset “critical” in the first place.  Through proper construction of criticality analysis models, you will be able to illustrate what management plan enhancements must be made in order to effectively control or mitigated asset-related risks.
WHAT’S IN THE NUMBER?
The first step in setting up a criticality analysis model is to define those characteristics that will be used to analyze each asset.  These characteristics should cover a wide range of business attributes, such as:
•    Customer impact – how do non-conformances impact your customer?
•    Safety and environmental impact – What’s the potential for a regulatory non-compliance?
•    Ability to isolate single-point-failures – Do you have a workaround in place in the event of failure?
•    Preventive Maintenance (PM) history – How much is your organization spending trying to control known risks today?
•    Corrective Maintenance (CM) history – How much have you spent recovering from non-conformances?
•    Mean-Time-Between-Failures (MTBF) – How often does a non-conformance occur?
•    Probability of failure – How likely is it to occur again in the future?
•    Spares lead time – When spares are needed, are they easy to obtain?
•    Asset replacement value – What will you spend to replace the asset if the risk can’t be managed?
•    Planned utilization rate – Is this asset something you really need?
Each characteristic should then be weighted to identify significance – what’s most important to the business within the Asset Management Strategy.  The greater the scale the easier it will be to accurately identify “critical” assets, however, the total score possible should not exceed 100, at a minimum.  By setting a limit of 100, you are re-enforcing the “weight” of each characteristic.
Next week we will look at "What can be learned from the Number?"

Friday, July 18, 2014

Precision Maintenance: Belts, Chains, and Sprockets

Today's post by Brandon Weil will add the element of precision to your program.

Belts, chains, and sprockets, chances are you have at least one if not all of these in your facility, and chances are you’re relying heavily on experience and judgment instead of quantitative inspection criteria. All too often the importance of proper inspection techniques and defined replacement criteria for these critical parts are overlooked. Don’t believe me? Just pull up some of your PM inspection procedure, discuss the topic at a tool box meeting, or observe someone performing the inspection, you might be surprised at the range of answers and opinions. If there isn’t a specific measurement or min/max criteria then you’re leaving the inspection up to chance. Another thing to consider is if these parts aren’t being installed properly in the first place you will undoubtedly see premature failures and reduced operational life, inspection criteria applies to installation practice requirements as well.
The good news is that you can start improving the quality of these inspections; all you need are a few basic low-cost tools Click Here and you will find a document with inspection criteria for these three parts to get you started. Improving your PM inspection procedure, putting the right tools in the right hands, and setting quantitative standards for your inspection is a very low-cost high-return activity that can start paying dividends today.