Jump to content
Test ×

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/05/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Raul - like you I'm comparing numbers between countries. Earlier in the year I was in Australia with a client so I'm watching Australia and Canada, as well as the UK and USA. Australia and Canada had similar numbers for a while but Canada's have grown much faster. Our measures here were less strict and slower. The UK and USA - both very slow and very lax. The US doesn't even have a single health care system to speak of so they are really in rough shape. I think Boris in the UK got a lesson on "herd immunity" and fortunately for him, survived. Given the timing of the crisis, a lot of retired Canadians who winter in Florida (our "snowbirds") have returned home from one of the hardest hit areas of the USA and had to go through yet another hard hit area (NY). A number returned with the disease. We do count what's going on in our nursing homes and they have been very hard hit. Sadly they are not set up like hospitals. Isolation is a challenge for them and the workers are just not used to handling something like this. Sadly, a lot of seniors are passing away prematurely. What is good, are the various reports of nature bouncing back as human activity slows - whales off Marseilles, the Himalaya's visible from 200 km away, noticeably less pollution in China and elsewhere, fuel consumption is way down, there are few contrails in the sky (and green house gas from them is going down), wildlife is appearing in cities. Nature is telling humanity something here and we would be wise to listen. As maintainers and asset management people, we have a role to play in keeping our planet healthy. Efficient running equipment consumes less energy and helps our atmosphere. Ensuring that containment works keeps our planet's earth, water and air cleaner. Making sure our designs are functionally capable of doing the least harm is needed, perhaps more than pure myopic return-on-investment. Life is precious - we can see that as many are losing loved ones unexpectedly. Reliable assets are safer! When things ramp back up, let's make sure they do it with speed and efficiency and cleanly. We are an important part of earth's recovery and we will be (as we always have been) a part of sustaining it. Now let's do a better job!
  2. 3 points
    Show some leadership first, insist on performance of some essentials and use reliability to give you some revenue generation opportunities. Costs can be brought down later with better maintenance practices, but quick wins (needed for production) will come from asset reliability. You need to spend some money to help your people understand what "good" looks like - clearly you are walking into a situation where they do not. Keep that training fairly high level (overview) and get their ideas about what needs to change. Asking them for their input will help morale and begin a shift in attitude. Using those ideas you can build a longer term improvement plan. Costs are not important at this point so demonstrate you care by investing a small amount in training. You need to up your game on production and that means increased reliability to get out of break-down mode. Your people are used to break then fix, and they need to know there is a better way - training! Some quick wins will come from bad actors using root cause analysis methods. Those enable increased production and revenue generation - your budget shouldn't be touched if you pick the ones that are causing the most downtime. There's no need to get fancy - use 5 why's and make sure you can prove the answers you get with some form of evidence. Success with those will give some breathing room to get more of your workforce doing proactive maintenance. If you have a PM program - follow it. If you don't, then you need one - see Appendix C in my book, "Uptime - Strategies for Excellence in Maintenance Management" (3rd edition). If necessary put dedicate some of your people to those PMs (e.g.: an oiler or lube tech), Get your planners planning - not supervising and not chasing parts. Use your MRO support people (Supply chain) to get what the plans say is needed. Don't schedule work without all the parts available.
  3. 3 points
    Hi all, I think that nearly every RCA technique can be really useful depending on its application. Personally, I like to use 5-Why to minor failures and FTA for major issues. In terms of 5-Why, it can be quite efficient to solve minor problems due to its simplicity, which allows all properly trained staff members to use it, tackling small problems that can result in big losses in the end. On the other hand, FTA is really powerful method to eliminate complex problems or those which can result in appalling consequences for the business; however, it may require more energy to be accomplished. One interesting and dynamic process used in one company a worked for a few years ago is that, all failures that resulted in unplanned losses should be analysed. Those failures that lasted up to 1 hour should be analyzed using 5-Why by the maintenance and operations team, having the Maintenance Supervisor as a leader to facilitate the process. Failures from 1 hour up to 9 hours should be analysed by an Engineer, he could choose which method would be more useful for each case. For those failures that resulted in big losses, which for that business meant more than 10 hours, an Engineer should analyse it using FTA and register as much evidence as possible to eliminate not only that failure, but also, create a data bank which would support new RCA's for different equipment/systems in the future. Regards, Raul Martins
  4. 2 points
    Hi all, For this week’s topic, we will be discussing the still quite common “forever fixing culture”. Finding companies/plants that work in a run to failure culture is definitely not a hard task and I am pretty sure that we all have gone through this situation before at least once. Basically, those sort of cultures are part of a vicious cycle composed by reactive maintenance actions, “quick solutions” and a vital thing that keeps it alive: rewarding the forever fixing culture. Regarding such topic, nothing better than these paragraphs written by Ramesh Gulati on his book “Maintenance and Reliability Best Practices - Second Edition”: “For decades, we have had a system of reward that has created a misaligned culture. Design teams are rewarded for achieving functional capability at the lowest cost; they usually are not really concerned about the downstream problems for operations and maintenance and the true life-cycle cost of ownership of the asset. Production teams are rewarded when they beat a production number, regardless of any real demand for the product or without any concern for the effect their actions have had on the asset health. Maintenance teams always have been rewarded for fixing asset failures and not improving reliability or availability. They get extra pay for coming in at inconvenient times when the asset is broken and get “attaboys” from the management to fix it. If we are rewarded for failures, why would we want reliability? Who would step up and volunteer for a 15–20% pay cut for reduced overtime? People don’t pay as much attention to what their managers say with words as compared to what they actually do. If management says they want reliability — no failures or minimum failures — but they keep paying for failures, we will continue to get failures. This culture needs to be changed and improved.” Have you seen this sort of behavior from Maintenance Managers? How about Project and Production teams? Have you been rewarded for failures? Regards, Raul Martins
  5. 2 points
    A challenge that must be solved. I have a passion for teaching and solving problems. The former is often required as a part of the latter. Anytime I share some information I feel good. It's gratifying to be recognized for what I do, but more importantly, it's fulfilling to help others.
  6. 2 points
    I passed the exam back in 2017 and will renew it again. I did not have any study material; however, I do have extensive experience in maintenance and maintenance practices. You need to be knowledgeable in many areas including CMMS, machine reliability, warehousing, etc.
  7. 2 points
    Well my mum wanted me to study Accounting so I can work in Banks and knot tie but after my Junior school, I told her I want to start learning Auto mechanic after class.....was funny at start because my classmate will come around just to make jest of me............it was not a common thing because everyone was focusing on only school. But it became clear after the first 2 years of studying mechanical engineering and I had to do IT with Procter and Gamble, then I develop a kin interest in maintenance and after which I was also employed in the company, worked in both PM and AM as a team member to a Team leader creating lot of maintenance standards for equipment.........I av diverted a bit but I am working on going back fully.
  8. 2 points
    My journey to being a M&R Professional wasn't quite straight forward for me. Like most Malawian students, I wasn't really sure what field i wanted to venture into. I got selected to the university to study Industrial/Mechanical Engineering. It was just a normal thing for me, solving problems, passing exams and presenting academic projects was the norm. It wasn't until I went for industrial attachments (at Illovo Sugar Company, Dwangwa), that I develop keen interest in maintenance. I was there for 4 months, working with the maintenance technicians. I got interested to see how good maintenance was at the heart of production. Even in my final year at the university, I can say that Plant Maintenance and Reliability, was one of my favorite subjects. I am a strong believer in M&R, plant performance and uptime rely on it. From that time, I have never looked back, even though i have worked before in the production department, and now I am more of a design engineer; M&R lies closest to my heart. And i believe with the right approach and using the right tools of M&R we can increase productivity, up-time, and execute quality and thorough work in as far as M&R is concerned.
  9. 2 points
    I have not taken the CMRP exam and have thought about it a number of times, but have never taken the leap. I have a MMP (Maintenance Management Professional) Certification in Canada, but the CMRP seems to be more widely recognized.
  10. 2 points
    Hi all, I'm new to the community and wanted to briefly introduce myself. I'm a Chemical Engineer from Australia working in a Reliability role in a Food & Beverage company. I balance managing the reliability team (with associated reactive challenges) with making long-term improvements to how we do maintenance. I look forward to sharing knowledge with you all and developing as a reliability professional. Regards, Glen
  11. 2 points
    Greetings Everyone My Name is Andronica Kwapeng. I have 7 years experience in Maintenance and Reliability. My experience is from Petrochemical and Mining Industry. I am currently working as a Reliability Engineer in Mining Company in Kathu, Northern Cape in South Africa. I am Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional (CMRP) by Society for Maintenance and Reliability Proffesional (SMRP). I am looking forward to learn from you and share my experience
  12. 2 points
    Hi All, I think that many companies having this kind of issue, but there is no word “late” for starting a reliable plant. In my company, yes we have PM Program for all the assets (most of it executed internally by our people and some executed by OEM). Regarding to the topic Defect elimination, normally we do Root Cause Analysis meeting that conducted weekly (consistently) attended by the production team, Engineering Team, Quality Team, Inventory Team, and Plant head. Here’s the general information from this activities: 1. Problem Description & impact Take time to describe the problem to the meeting attendees, ensure the understanding are levels and share the impact of the issue (could be loss financial, loss machine availability , loss inventory, etc). The easiest way to describe the issue is by using flow process diagram 2. Brainstorming Brainstorming is one of the effective method to gather information & perspective of each person. List down all the brainstorming issues and make a decision which of them are closest to the possible cause (can be more than 1 item) 3. Possible causes The result of brainstorming issue compressed into 2-5 points. From here please do the 5 why analysis. Note: 5 why analysis is a tricky method, be wise on using this. The good 5 why analysis should be vice versa 4. Action Plan From the possible causes, of course we will find what we want to do next. Create a table that contain *actions, PIC, support requires, due date* After completing 4 steps above, we can make a KPI that monitored in certain period (daily, weekly, bi-weekly, etc). If the problem still occurs, normally we got back to step 1 and redo all the process with experience before. Hope this can give insight to you Cheers
  13. 2 points
    Hello All, It is very impressive the level of experience and contribution of each one to this discussion. I was just hired to be a maintenance manager in a company as was described in the title. This post was very very helpfully to open my mind about how to start and to thinking deeply about why we do what we do. As soon as possible I will share with you the results.
  14. 2 points
    Hello Everybody, I would just like to take the pleasure of introducing myself. My Name is Craig and i am a time served multi skilled engineer, my background is FMCG throughout my working career, i have picked up many skills from being in this environment which i love doing, I started out on shift living a rather reactive existence where i learned to work under pressure developing critical thinking along the way a part o my career which i see as being absolutely necessary to see both sides of the coin, i have seen new opportunities recently and moved into the role of Maintenance Management, Again learning new skills every day. The skill set difference and the willingness to learn new methods and techniques has brought me onto joining the forums where i hope to gather a sound understanding on top of what i already have. My ultimate aim is to coach and teach this out to those still working in the reactive environment and give them the understanding that was not available to me at the time. in turn trying to bring the company i work for into a more productive and forward thinking mindset. Hopefully there are plenty of people on the forums that can relate with me and i look forward to meeting some of you. Craig.
  15. 2 points
    Hi Everyone, My name is Wirza from Indonesia. I have Mechanical Engineering educational background and have been working in FMCG in past +8 years. Currently i am working as Packaging Service Manager in Coca-Cola Amatil Indonesia. Previously i have extensive 5 years experience in operational & maintenance bottling industries. In 2015 i was assigned as Project Manager to handle Green-Field Project of Packaging Service Plant which now the place i am working on. I will go trough the forum and hopefully i also can share my experience BR
  16. 2 points
    I took the exam and earned the CMRP in 2014. The concept that SMRP had was that it would be recognition of experience combined with expertise. There was an extensive reading list and at that time, I was unaware of any courses to help in preparation. The exam was intended and described as a recognition of accumulated expertise and experience. I believe it had meaning because you really needed to know your stuff to pass, SMRP did not endorse any courses that may have been aimed at getting one through the exam and as far as I know, that is still the case (although they do endorse training providers). The exam was long (as it is now), not too difficult if you had broad and deep experience, but people without experience would have struggled - and many did. Some colleagues (typically the less experienced) took more than one attempt to pass. Since then I've seen several courses emerge to prepare people for the exam, often offered at the same venue and concurrently so that course participants could write the exam immediately. I've been asked by training organizations here in N America and overseas to teach such courses. Those organizations sell training and could earn fees on the coat-tails of a reasonably well recognized certification that they really had nothing to do with. I have consistently refused to teach such courses. I was perplexed to see that happening. In my opinion, such prep courses combined with the exam, cheapened the designation's meaning. It was being degraded from a recognition of experience and expertise, to a recognition of the ability to remember material over a short time frame, solely to pass an exam. Such short-cuts on real experience don't result in much retention of what is taught, so how much (aside from a designation) has one gained? I renewed my membership and designation, but eventually decided to allow both to lapse. While I believe SMRP to be a terrific organization, I've seen it do nothing to arrest the degradation of the meaning behind its CMRP designation. I also see similar certifications appearing and being awarded by for profit organizations, and in recognition of the completion of courses and passing of exams. That doesn't mean the individuals don't have the expertise and experience to earn some recognition, but there is no mechanism aside from payment of a fee and passing of an exam, to attest to that. Again, I believe the genuinely well qualified are being recognized along with those who are not so well qualified. Can such designations really be relied upon to mean very much?
  17. 2 points
    @Raul Martins thank you, its good to know SAP performances. Have you using any methodology (flowchart, BPMN, ....) ? On this yours examples, can be possible found and reliability for any spare parts, of any business partners, and compare performances (prices/ working times...). Current project I m set up need work order (maintenance order) for cars (15000 km/ 30000 km/ 60000 km - that is 3 type of BOM) its ADempiere free ERP system 3 type of resource and 2 type of tools, every BOM have specific workflows (operations replacement motor oil: Auto mechanic should lift up the car an car workshop equipment, based on resource AUTO MECHANIC with setup time 5 min and duration time 5 min, next AM should remove stopper and merge old oil 2/30 minutes ..... 25 activities) there is more then 10000 products (motor oil 10w 40 ....) input-ed from purchase orders from supply chain management (SCM) located on warehouses. At the end I need sent link to my manager and he will input data in work order (maintenance order) so any costs for any cars will be sent to business partners (with one or more cars, for big organization its 20-30 cars) and all invoices and accounting and payment. At that moment I have not yet setup CRP diagrams for resource loading (there is 6 main and 3 external lines) . This is simple project I have and not so complex. (http://wiki.adempiere.net/Sponsored_Development:_Libero_Manufacturing_Work_Shop)
  18. 2 points
    Raul - yes, it is challenging to keep people focused where they need to be. You need to ramp it up on the PM team as I think I mentioned. Discipline is challenging and that's what your supervisors are there to enforce - discipline in execution and consistency and with the schedule. It's about sticking to what needs to be done, not about disciplining people. Your supervisors will need to be on board. Like the techs, they need to be a part of crafting the improvement initiative.
  19. 2 points
    I agree with all what UptimeJim has said and would like to add a few more thoughts: I. FOCUS ON THE BASICS & STAGE It is crucial to start with the basics and focus on Wildly Important Goals (see e.g. https://www.franklincovey.com/Solutions/Execution/4-disciplines.html). You may want to use some assessment tools to help you prioritize the steps. Terry Wireman puts it very nicely in several of his books that the Preventive Maintenance Program should be a fundament, enabling all other methodologies to be built upon. Wireman’s maintenance management pyramid is also useful for that purpose. The staging of the maintenance processes improvements needs to be realistic and well managed. Some suggested steps to start with: · Develop a PM program, or refine the existing one using a simplified risk matrix, “bad actor” Pareto analysis etc. · When the PM tasks are updated, cleaned up and put into the CMMS work on planning and scheduling. · Strongly focus on concise Work Ordering Process. There are at least three good reasons for that: firstly, a WO should define and enable control of LOTOTO and HSE requirements, and, secondly, a WO is a key information vehicle in maintenance. Without a good history, it is hard to make any analyses, KPI calculation and tracking etc. In many cases, WO can provide useful inputs for RCAs. Thirdly, only a solid WO process enables the right prioritization and gatekeeping which also affect reliability. · As RCA/defect elimination comes to play, together with all the lessons learned from the WO execution, the feedback loop/continual improvement goes back to the PM program and so on. In many cases it is advisable that improving housekeeping practices in parallel with the above gives an additional signal that the change is real and can be one of the quick wins. The fact of the matter is that the plants with poor maintenance very often show poor housekeeping practices. II. PREPARE A BUSINESS CASE Without a solid Business Case or at least a good Cost-Benefit Analysis “showing the money” to the Board, maintenance remains perceived as a pure cost generator – instead of becoming a value adder in an organization. And it is hard to expect proper sponsoring of top-level executives if they do not recognize the economic outcomes. Some good and useful concepts can be found in a book Value Driven Maintenance: https://www.mainnovation.com/vdm-xl/. III. MANAGE CHANGE Way too many maintenance managers have never had a chance to receive training in Change Management. True, they are not expected to be solely responsible for CM in this kind of projects. But without their understanding of the need for CM, of its principles and without factoring them into the implementation of new methodologies of maintenance management, the chances for success are very slim. Many improvement projects in maintenance requiring changes in the way people do the work do not get fully implemented and/or are not delivering the expected outcomes. A common denominator for most of them seems to be the lack of CM. Lots of useful CM resources and training can be found at https://www.prosci.com/
  20. 2 points
    Buenos días Debes de realizar un análisis de criticidad nuevamente sobre los equipos para que sepas orientar y destinar bien los recursos limitados que te ofrece la compañía. Una vez que sepas cuáles son los equipos críticos , revisa las estrategias de mantenimiento a través de PMO o AMFE. A este punto no recomiendo RCM por el tiempo y costo. Previo a esto realiza tu análisis RAM para fijar tu disponibilidad, confiabilidad y mantenibilidad con el objetivo de asegurarla a través de la técnicas ya dicha.
  21. 2 points
    First and foremost, it is a dream come true. I graduated as a civil engineer in the University of Sierra Leone-Fourah Bay College and because of the country I live (Sierra Leone), graduating as a civil engineer is one thing and getting a job is another thing. After graduating in 2008, in 2010 I was lucky to be recruited in a mining company called African Mineral SL Limited that was later changed to Shandong steel SL Limited where I was recruited as a planner in the maintenance department. I had no choice but to look for any job in order to make myself relevant and useful after a year or two after graduation without a job. Furthermore, after being recruited in the maintenance planning department at the start it was a bit hard for me because this was not the field I graduated but non the less, I was determined to learn and my manager saw that in me and she also was open and willing to teach me and I was brought to speed. Honestly, even though I graduated as a civil engineer and there are so many challenges in learning maintenance planning, I have grown to love this field and forget being a civil engineer because my experience lies in this respect and I have made up my mind in making maintenance planning my career. Moreover, paying now for this course will be very difficult for me because I have been redundant about a year ago and no job at the moment to support myself. Here in Sierra Leone, as long as you are not part of the political parties and no relatives in the government, getting a job is by Gods grace. Also, I don't have any strong relative that will support me of this quest. Not withstanding all that, I am looking for such opportunity of taking this course, earn a certificate and have something to show for it since at least I now have some experience and with a certificate in this field, it will beef up my CV/Resume and help me open up to more opportunities in the future. Finally, I want to kindly ask for this opportunity and be more considerate because I don't want to be left out in this course. I am not sure who is going to be the lucky winner but even if I am not successful, I want you to think of me and consider me to be part of this course because I fully know opportunities like this are rare to come by. Now that I don't have anything much to do and no job at the moment taking this course will help me improve my maintenance and planning skills and provide light at the end of the tunnel. Yusufu Tarawallie - Certificate (Redundancy).pdf Yusufu Tarawallie - Engineering Certificate.pdf Yusufu Tarawallie - Statement Of Result.pdf
  22. 1 point
    Hi Andre & Raul, Good day and thank you for bring light to this topic. Andre, I like your list of KPIs as it is a starting point for companies to embrace and record their journey through growth. Raul and I had spent a few months discussing the importance of this topic, especially with regards to the types of KPIs and implementation strategies thereof. When I started working for the company I am presently with over 2 years ago, there were no KPIs at all because the company was not utilizing anything above 5% to 10% utilization of its CMMS System. Immediately this should raise a lot of red flags for anyone reading this. We are 2 decades into the millennium and here I am in a company comprised of 12 plants that literally capture no useful data, if any at all. So, with this said, a lot has transpired over the past two years and now I am in a position to assist with this endeavor. So, I needed to share this bit of information to continue on with the next. If a company has not embraced the importance of maintenance and reliability and has developed a culture focused on throughput and profits from micromanaging costs, you can imagine the mountain to climb and massive limited belief systems in place that must be overcome with replaced with new empowering beliefs. Thus said, as we move forward to climb this mountain, the KPIs we are introducing are as much a set of rudimentary data audit type reporting tools as they are KPIs. My challenge right now is to 1. Carefully and strategically use common data code sets, fields and methodologies to capture useful, meaningful data for the purpose of cultural change and improved operations. 2. Provide the necessary tools and training to input data. 3. Have departments and people held accountable towards the collection of this data. 4. Support, mentor, motivate and coach all involved to move this endeavor forward. In short, the plan is to combine a rational and emotional approach to this journey. I am sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of other companies experiencing the same scenario either in part or whole. Thus the important goal here is to help each other understand the issues at hand and support each other to reach resolves. I am in the midst of finalizing the introductory KPIs for our company and will share them in a follow up post. It is always a pleasure to read your shared thoughts and experiences and I am always open to any feedback that both of you and the others in this community can offer. Have a great day! Jim
  23. 1 point
    Gentlemen, I believe that change management has more elements to it than just obtaining sponsorship from the executive level. Remember that we are dealing with human beings! How we think, how we form beliefs, how we confirm those beliefs, the syntax or strategies formed to be in alignment with these beliefs, whether these beliefs are limiting or empowering. our value systems and alignment with our beliefs and strategies, how we chose to use Fear and Pleasure to guide us. Uptime Jim, You and I had a conversation on this topic in brief and we both concluded that a lot of our efforts are not found in books based on RCM, CBM, RCA, FEMAs etc. We need to think outside of the box. All of us, need to have as many or more information in our libraries on the human side of this topic. I can guarantee all of us that we know far less about our own thinking patterns, subconsciously stored beliefs and associated attributes that wake us up every morning and push us through our work day and personal lives. This is a great topic and I believe we have not taken the road less travelled to obtain new perspecitives We cannot be masters until we learn how to be servants! Sincerely, Jim
  24. 1 point
    Maintenance team are usually not involved in production assembling of equipment. Minimising reassembling issues actually begins from the earlier stage of disassembling of used equipment. In new equipment, all components are new and it is much easier to strip down a new unused equipment ( if you want to do reverse engineering and record the manufactured original measurement) and reassembling back. Used equipment disassembling is a different ballgame. If a technician has no specific experience in disassembling of a particular equipment, but familiar with general good practices of disassembling ( including inspection, recording as-found settings and marking adjacent components), he could still be able to overhaul the equipment. However, it would be advisable to obtain a cross section drawing and study what components make up the equipment and the features and material of each components. Features for aligning and mating should be identified. It would be good to take that copy of the cross sectional drawing and colour each components in different colours. Below is an example. This is my first condition for any technician to be allowed to lead in the overhauling work, that is able to colour such drawing correctly. From the drawing the technician can determine the correct and proper sequence of dismantling, what jigs and tools are needed, and the cares to be taken. After completion of the disassembling, each and every used component must be inspected visually and dimensionally, for imperfections i.e wears, distortion, etc. Even new component must be inspected and measured to determine the likely fits and clearances and possible mismatch during reassembling. Worn parts may needed to be rebuilt. Any damages, from the disassembly must also be corrected. Each component must be handled with care as dents can create problems during assembling. [ There is no 100% guarantee that new parts even from reliable trusted source can fit perfectly to adjacent components that are reused). If you are reusing components, an experience technician can foresee the issues that he is likely to face during reassembling. Whatever findings during disassembly, the inspection of old or new parts,the refurbishment works on components can already assist in foretelling the likely issues during reassembling. Cleanliness during an reassembling is extremely important. Fitting should always be carried out with care in accordance with Good Engineering and Industrial Practices, especially when power tools are employed. There are so many do and don't in reassembling of equipment to obtain a flatten reliability bathtub curve for that equipment. Simply assuming that overhaul is just parts-changing often lead to random failure.
  25. 1 point
    Hi UptimeJIm and all; could not agree more with your statement. Have seen quite a few cases like that - and the worst of it all was that the top management was not even aware of the need for sponsorship. And let me cite just two important conclusions from Prosci's studies over the last 20 years worldwide having involved more than 3400 participants: Projects with excellent CM are 6x more likely to meet or exceed their objectives. The executive sponsor has the highest single impact on project success. Best regards, Andrej
  26. 1 point
    Hi all, My biggist problem at the moment is i can plan work but have problems with the permit office releasing plant for us to do the work. Have any of you others had this problem and how have you managed to solve it.
  27. 1 point
    Hi @UptimeJim, That MTBF mistake is something very commonly made. Not only when it comes to task frequency, but also for spare part strategy. Great explation about using risk and economic as an approach to achieve positive outcomes from your PM. By the way, I went through a situation this weekend that a component wore through, causing significant damage to a piece of equipment. This looks like a good opportunity to use some LDA concepts to improve it. Regards, Raul Martins
  28. 1 point
    I am presently posted in a FMCG and considered a key worker. Our plant of 1500 workers was going very strong as people were panic buying at the start however things have taken a major slow down and with the closure of many fast food outlets the company if faltering slightly. We have implemented social distancing in the factory and installed screens on the production lines to mitigate the risk to the staff and ensure their safety. Staff have been off and the maintenance dept has been bringing in people that are not working on 4 week contracts to assist.
  29. 1 point
    Hi @Chuck Clarkson and @Mohammed tawili, I agree with you about the limitations of the 5Whys. Yet, I see it as a good solution in two different scenarios: 1- You have no defect elimination process and need to start understanding and eliminating failures; 2- You have a well-implemented defect elimination process with different triggers. For instance, it can be used in minor failures (up to 1 hour downtime?) analyses by properly trained staff members, such as Maintenance Technicians and Operators. While for major failures, another technique can be used by Engineers. By doing so, you will have more failures analysed (reducing the reoccurrence likelyhood). In terms of the cause mapping, I haven't heard about it before. But it seems to be a good RCA tool as well. I will have a better look at it later this week. Regards, Raul Martins
  30. 1 point
    Greetings Raul, Senior management (i.e.: those with true P&L responsibility and strategic decision making authority) need to be made aware of the business impact of NOT acting and the costs associated with taking action. If there is truly a valid business case (and there often is), and the costs do not exceed their ability to pay (the company must have money or be able to find money to pay for it), then they will want to take action. Their next questions will be about "how to" do it. This where it pays to have some outside help. Internal resources are often inexperienced at managing changes of this nature. In many cases, they've been in one environment for a long time and haven't had to lead a change. They are managers (keep the boat steady), not change agents (rock the boat). Outsiders or new managers in the roles are often brought in with a mandate to rock the boat. In all likelihood, if the ones making the case are internal, they are in a difficult position to explain "how to". Consider that if they really knew "how to", then their bosses might ask, "why didn't you say so sooner?" or worse, "why didn't you do something about it sooner?" If the one raising the concerns is new, he has an opportunity. If it's someone who's been around awhile, then he may be fearful of making a career limiting move. This latter type is often in the way of change and is one of the reasons why the organization has a problem in the first instance. If I'm brought in by senior management (e.g.: executive branch, operations, finance types), then I often find this to be the case - the manager is part of the problem. If he can admit it to himself and get on-board, then there's some chance, but if not, he's probably not going to be around for long. Admitting one doesn't know and has now learned, is far superior to resisting change. Silos are a problem and often a hidden one. Again, outside perspectives are often needed. Silos are hidden by the very reports and KPIs meant to reveal how we are doing. Problems within a silo are usually well known within the silo, but hidden from outside view. Hiding them are reports and indicators meant to reveal problems so they can be acted upon. But by revealing problems, one risks appearing to be doing a bad job. Even if there is knowledge in-house that communications are an issue, there is usually little real knowledge of the impacts. Performance reward schemes often exacerbate the situation here. It takes a dispassionate outside perspective to look into this and highlight the flaws. It's very challenging for one who receives a bonus based on a performance measure that is flawed, to want to change it, especially if it's been good to them. I've experienced HR departments staunchly defending their reward / bonus schemes, even if they know it's not really encouraging behaviors that are desirable. They often don't have the insight into behavior at the more granular level to consider any other options, and they rarely have help from those in the other departments and areas where behaviors need to change. Silos produce reports - often looking good inside, but hiding what's really doing on inside. One thing that many senior managers know exists, but struggle to see clearly, is the obfuscation of truth in what is being reported to them. Reports and KPIs often show a somewhat sanitized view and since they are allegedly based on data, they become believable (or at least provide for plausible deniability). Data is often flawed though and anything based on what's in databases that is not truly fit for purpose, will be likewise flawed. Again, it's often not in the best interest of many managers to point this out. Imagine telling your boss, "here's your report, oh and by the way, I'm pretty sure it's fictionally based on what we have in our flawed data base". Reports might be one manager's responsibility, data storage another's, data input yet another's. Everyone owns it, therefore no one really owns it. I'm all for making evidence based decisions, but the data better be rock solid - and sadly, it usually isn't. I could go on about this one. Bottom line - unless you are brand new, have a mandate to rock the boat, have the cross-functional experience to see through all the elaborate smoke-screens, then get some help. I hope I've answered your question.
  31. 1 point
    Hi all, In the Road to Reliability Roadmap™, we discuss four essential elements to reach a reliable plant, which one of those processes is Maintenance Planning and Scheduling (P&S). We all know that Planning and Scheduling plays a vital role in achieving an efficient Maintenance, by ensuring all the necessary resources will be available at the right moment. However, many companies still struggle to implement a proper P&S process. The reasons for this vary, but lack of knowledge is definitely one of those, as it still quite common to find Maintenance professionals that do not know what Planning is, nor what Scheduling is. Today we will be discussing this element. Actually, we will be discussing just half of it: Planning. So, what is planning? In short, Planning defines what work will be done and how. In other words, planning is identifying and preparing everything that a tradesperson (boilermaker, electrician, mechanical fitters, etc.) will need to perform a specific task in a timely and efficient manner. Try to remember of a situation in which you had to perform a simple maintenance task at your house. Maybe a leaky washing machine, or install a new shower. How many times you had to stop the work to get a different tool because you needed a different seize or you simply got the wrong one? How about visiting that warehouse down the road to buy the parts that you did not know you would need? Now imagine yourself 5 months later doing the same task. However, now you know all the tools and components you will need to perform it. This time, you spend sometime prior the job preparing everything you will need. Which situation you think would be more efficient? I bet the second one would not only be faster, but less stressful as well. An inadequate Planning will cause several problems for your company, such as inefficiency, rework, low morale and, of course, poor results. On the other hand, a well-established planning process can solve such issues and increase the efficiency of your Maintenance team by 35%. Now, what about sharing your Planning experience with our members? Have you experienced a poor planning process? Or a well-implemented one? Regards, Raul Martins
  32. 1 point
    Hi Erick My name is Mushanguri Innocent.I am a mechanical engineer who leads a maintenance department in Zimbabwe.I am excited to join the community and i am looking forward to learn.
  33. 1 point
    Hello all! I'm the Reliability Manager at KUMC in Kansas City, KS. I've been in this role since 2018 when it was created. I'm here to learn from others as I'm currently wearing a lot of "hats" in our organization. I'm looking forward to the many discussions! LaWayne
  34. 1 point
    Hi.. everyone, hope you are all good. Introduce myself. my name is Satrio, i am currently work Independent consultant, field engineer 7 years (Coring and hole enlargement) and workshop maintenance for 12 years (MWD), hope i can learn it more and get some shared on this community. Make it better work and goodness. Thank you.
  35. 1 point
    In order to foster positivity in this community and to make this is an inclusive and positive environment I ask that everyone meets the following expectations and guidelines: Treat other members with the respect they deserve. This should go without saying, but treat others like you would like to be treated! Be nice, keep it positive. Be helpful. Have fun. Enjoy the opportunity to receive peer-to-peer assistance. Be open to feedback and be constructive and positive when you give it. Please do not spam. The definition of spam is an irrelevant, advertising or self-promotional post. Any post considered spam will be removed. Please do not post threads text in all CAPITALS since this is considered to be shouting and is not necessary.  Do not post copyright-infringing material (and don't ask for it!) The forum language is English only. Non-English posts will be removed. When creating your profile use your real name and a real picture. Consider this an extension of your professional profile on LinkedIn. Community members who do not comply will be asked to comply or risk having their profile removed. When posting, please take the time to post in the right forum and when posting make sure your topic headlines are descriptive and clear. Before you post use the search functionality to reduce duplicate threads. As we develop this community these rules and expectations will be modified and expanded upon.
  36. 1 point
    My first CMMS was a home grown system called, "Dynamic Equipment Information Systems" (DEIS) at the PetroChemical complex where I worked as a maintenance engineer. It was a very basic work order system that provided job plan details, parts lists and history. Each job was recorded in text fields and all the history was printed with any work order. The thickness of the work order print out was an indicator of troublesome equipment, or a long BOM. Our refinery (next door) was using a paper based system. Both worked well for work management and since discipline of recording what was found wrong and corrected was actually pretty good, both systems had fairly useful information for reliability purposes. I put that down to the discipline our craftsmen had and the attention that we paid to what they wrote. My consulting days began some 7 years later, when CMMS were still largely replacing paper based systems. They were more complex and feature rich and even handled spares inventory. Some handled automated buying and other functions. However, our customers seemed to be struggling far more than I did with getting good information to make reliability decisions. I've probably seen hundreds of different systems, some easy to use, some that were user hostile, some with very basic functionality working very well and some that were feature and functionally rich but under-utilized. I've only seen one or two that I thought were bad for the job they had to do in the customer's working environment. Most work well but most are also poorly implemented, poorly (or not) supported, operated by poorly trained or untrained maintainers, and incapable of generating needed reports without extra programming, extra software bolted on or a lot of effort manipulating data on spreadsheets. Most customers today are more "data distracted" than "informed". Their CMMS' add cost but little real value. I do not blame the software (in most cases). The problems usually arise from poor implementation, poorly thought out business processes (automating the old and not taking advantage of new functionality), poor fit of functionality to requirements, poorly stated requirements (e.g.: focused on technical specs rather than functionality), lack of training, no training, training by the person sitting next to you (learning others' bad habits), rushed implementations (out of budget, time), etc. In some cases the systems are far too complex for maintenance and reliability purposes. The systems available are not well designed to give basic failure and proactive maintenance related history information (e.g.: did it fail? what was failed? what was the failure mode? can you identify the cause of the failure? if it hadn't yet failed, would it have failed soon? was the job a result of some PdM finding? etc.). Designers of these systems are not reliability engineers so the data being gathered doesn't answer the questions that need to be asked. All too often the data being gathered does not provide information that is fit for purpose. In "our world" of maintainers too few really understand failure modes and failure management strategies. Although we are supposed to deliver "reliability" we focus on "maintenance". Arguably we have the emphasis in the wrong area - the means, not the ends. We don't use RCM as much as we probably should. We've failed to inform the programmers who design these systems of what we really need (many of us really couldn't define it well anyway) and for the most part the programmers don't know what they don't know. The end result is a myriad of systems with a lot of unused functionality, little of which (used or unused) actually helps us to improve reliability and reduce unwanted breakdowns that in most cases (by far) could have been foreseen.
  37. 1 point
    Hi to all Actually I faced this issue & slowly but I believe I have improved the conditions. I have moved & I would move in the following steps: List out your main spenders in terms of equipment. I believe, we can do it with 80-20 principal. Start work on them to find out the causes. Try to find out efficiency in budget to include training & investing in new tools to bring out predictive approach rather than reactive. If needed create a business case with ROI Develop together with operations to bring out a plan for maintenance team. Plant GM also needs to be involved as sometimes, there will be conflicts of interest & we need to find out the common path. Find out the cause of low morale & work on it. This is the most tedious task & will take more time. Once training & confidence building starts, the situation will automatically change but it has to be done slowly. New recruitment is a painful task & mostly not possible. I believe that is what we have to do in easy steps but I know that all of the above is easier said than done. Regards
  38. 1 point
    Hi Raul for example, elevators are more reliable and easier to maintain than in the past For older models, there are 2 ways 1) most critical components are switch breakers (380V 32A/16 A) because older elevators have induction engines without current inventors with WYE/DELTA start wiring systems and reliability is the function of number run (count) call elevators (frequency per 24 hours for 7 stations 35 flats 120 persons is from 240 (min 120x2) to 4800 start/stop average 563,1 +/- from houses to houses(assets/assets)) 2) total replacement of induction motor wiring - the function of load elevators (more loads up to limit load (up to 300kg - 4 big and heavy persons, or 450kg 8 very big and heavy persons etc .....) and that is very probably functions, so our open ERP system ADempiere give us pieces of information from databases about warehouses, purchase orders, material receipt, MRP and maintenance orders/ manufacturing orders/sales order CRP and level of switch breakers 380V (16/32/64 Amps) in storage (warehouses) is calculated from Williams formula but for induction engines is 5 days (replace engine 8-16 hours-2 days, replace wired 1, heat 3 days and fix induction engines 8-16 hours 2 days) - this workflows is for all powers (3,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,18 kW) replacement from old to new is not possible (slip ring induction engines have big prices ). Its not so simple to build MRP/DRP/CRP and postgreSQL/oracle_XE database give very interesting results from SQL queries. Gordan
  39. 1 point
    Hi Raul, thanks for the input, I think adding graphics is a great idea!
  40. 1 point
    What a topic! Lack of parts is a refrain (complaint) I hear over and over from customers all over the world. Sometimes there really are very poor spares management practices, sometimes stores has discarded needed materiel, sometimes policy does get in the way, but more often than not there are problems with planning and scheduling being flawed and far too short sighted. Planners expect the parts to be there, and the stores person needs to be told what spares need to be there. Even with diligence on both "sides", parts unavailability becomes a problem. Of course maintainers taking the issue into their hands will often stash parts in shops, etc. so that they know they have their critical spares. That serves to distort the information available to the stores-keepers so they are then left making decisions about buying on the basis of flawed, incomplete and inaccurate information. The problem is not so easily solved either because maintainer behavior will need to change, planning forecasts need to be far better than they usually are, and stores needs to get smarter about how it determines quantities to hold, buy and about what is NOT needed in stores any longer. Consider that parts are a form of insurance against downtime. Insurers don't use simplistic calculations to determine what coverage to offer - there's a whole array of statisticians (actuaries) looking at risks and where to and not to put their money. Most companies don't give anywhere near enough thought to spares, how much to invest in it, which spares to carry to get the most uptime, etc. You need to know what creates demand - failures and preventive work do most of that. Preventive maintenance should be planned and scheduled with a very easy to forecast demand for spares. Predictive and detective maintenance do not usually consume spares, but they do uncover failures that must be fixed (which usually do consume spares). That demand is also fairly easy to forecast if you use failure statistics to forecast what failures you will find. The only "surprises" should arise from those failures you allow to occur, likely randomly and (if you've done your RCM work) only on assets where some downtime is tolerable. Fast moving items (fasteners, fittings, electric devices, some bearings, etc.) can be managed with the simpler stores calculations for min / max / EOQ / ROP. Even if you don't forecast these, you can gather usage information based on actual usage. For the slower moving items the data won't build up for a long time so that approach breaks down. Lead times are often longer and those will drive up the need for spares, even with low demand. You need to forecast demand. It is based on failure rates and task frequencies. Clearly, the more of your work is proactive, the more easily you can forecast demand for most items. If you want to lower your risk of stockouts, then the math gets more complex. Very few companies use the sort of spares calculation tools that are needed and few stores people seem to have the mathematical knowledge to use them. Depending on the simple algorithms built into your CMMS/EAM is just not good enough. The software tools I've seen are not part of any CMMS/EAM - they are stand alone tools that perform the analysis. The results need to be transferred to your stores management software and then the analysis itself needs to be kept up to date. Someone needs to stay on top of the situation and that someone, needs to understand what she / he is doing, not just plugging numbers into formulas. There's quite a bit of science behind getting it right. Airlines and military organizations manage this reasonably well. They put investment into making sure asset availability is a top priority - like buying insurance. Unfortunately where failures are less critical and only cost us downtime, lost production and the concessional regulatory violation, or accident, we don't typically give this nearly the attention it deserves.
  41. 1 point
    Jim, you raised some execellent points. And it is also my experience that many executives talk about having many good maintenance practices in place, while reality may show a very different picture. Some of your points are in line with what I would consider focusing on the basics, and many of them may well fit into my understanding of a proper Change Management process. I trully believe the latter is essential for introducing the improvements into the day-to-day maintenance practices. WIthout changing the way maintenance personnel do their job, the outcomes of any improvement projects will be hard to realize. Best, Andrej
  42. 1 point
    Hi Raul, Thank you for your feedback. While I agree with your observation that poor training and knowledge management contribute to the inadequate WO information, let me suggest some more potential reasons: We should all understand that it is generally not realistic to expect from maintenance techs to start filling in all necessary information into the WO when the system is initially put in place. This is human. For that purpose, the change (and resistance!) have to be managed properly - which is not the case very often. If MOC was not utilized when implementing a WO system and the whole process has never been fully implemented, the change in the way maintenance crews do their jobs never gets entirely in place. Hence, not all necessary functionalities of the WO are used as initially planned. The WO process and associated roles may not be defined well enough and people are not completely aware of the stardards they should comply with. The approval points of either supervisors or maintenance managers within the WO workflow are either not in place or are not executed properly. Those approvals should assure that all the necessary information has been put into the WO prior to execution and after it. If not, the supervisor/manager should return the WO for update. This approach normally gives good results and with the time helps setting the standards. If the links to or data from the warehose are not established properly within CMMS, it is not realistic to expect that the spares will be planed and recorded appropriately.
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Hi @UptimeJim, Great post! I totally agree with your point of view. As Richard Branson says "Train people well enough so they can leave. Treat them well enough so they don't want to.", I believe leaders need to budget money for trainning and development of their teams. It is one of the best ways to increase morale, as well as results. In terms of bad actors and PM program, I have seen many different strategies to try to tackle failures and poor PM program attendance. You said that dedicating people may be an option, so what do you think of splitting your team in three small ones. For instance: Reactive Team - as this plant works in a reactive mode, you would have to deal with both preventive and reactive maintenance in the begining. For that reason, dedicating part of your technicians on reactive maintenance; Preventive Team - in order to follow your PM, other technicians would be fully dedicated to preventive maintenance and some small improvements in order to reduce unplanned breakdowns. Once you have improved your results, you start bringing people from the reactive team to the preventive team; Improvement Team - dedicating engineers and one or two technicians to focus on bad actors. This team would focus only on avoiding big losses caused by your bad actores using different Reliability techniques, from 5 why to FTA. How do you think this strategy would perform? Regards, Raul Martins
  45. 1 point
    First of all let me thank you for being a valued member of the Road to Reliability™ Community! I really do appreciate it. We started this community with the idea of creating a safe, online space where maintenance & reliability professionals like ourselves can share our experience and ask for advice. Since launching the community, it has steadily grown to well over 800 members worldwide, which is fantastic. But, I will be the first to admit that I have not been able to provide as much time to this community as I would have hoped. At the moment I am busy finishing my first online course on Maintenance Planning & Scheduling which will launch in January. I'm 100% committed to making this a thriving and valued online space, but communities require a lot of work. A lot of work. So I have decided to hire a Community Leader who will help moderate the community, stimulate discussions and encourage sharing. Someone who will help bring the best out in all of us. And I am please to announce that Raul Martins will soon start as a part-time Community Leader with Road to Reliability™. Raul lives in Brisbane, like me, but is originally from Brazil. Raul is a Mechanical Engineer by background and has an MBA in Maintenance Engineering Management aligned with Asset Management and a certificate in Reliability Engineering Consulting by Reliasoft. We're lucky to be able to bring Raul onboard and I am looking forward to reinvigorating our community in the months ahead. Please join me in welcoming Raul to our community and lets make this the most inclusive and inspiring online community for Maintenance & Reliability Professionals around the world! Kind Regards, Erik PS I have always said that this community would be free and remain committed to that principle. So despite hiring a Community Leader, I will keep my promise and ensure this community remains free for everyone.
  46. 1 point
    Hi @Gladiator, theoretically you could of course only include failures that related to maintenance in an MTBF calculation, but I would not recommend it for a few reasons: most failures have multiple causes and you will likely find that you have failures where maintenance contributed to the failure but might not have been the immediate 'trigger'. I feel you could waste a lot of time debating which failure to include or not using a jointly owned metric like MTBF, or uptime, can be very useful to build collaboration between departments because they are now all working to a joint goal i.e. to increase MTBF or uptime separating your KPI like this may lead to maintenance not getting involved in equipment that has a low MTBF just not due to maintenance issues. Imagine you have a category of equipment that has a lot of design issues and therefore experiences a low MTBF. That low MTBF would be owned by engineering given that it's due to design, but who has to make the frequent repairs? Maintenance and so it should be of great interest to you to reduce those defects and stop the recurrent repairs, but the way the MTBF metric is being used it may just lead to "well thats an engineering problem" ... Please do let us know which way you go with this. PS. Would you mind changing your name to your real name at least your first name? I really prefer to keep this forum as supportive and friendly as possible and addressing each other by our names is always helpful in that. Thank you for your understanding.
  47. 1 point
    Great topic @Derek Brown and I think one that many older plants do struggle with. In my view there is no reason why your CMMS would stop you from moving to condition based maintenance. For example vibration monitoring can be simply set up as a 1-monthly or 3-monthly time based task where someone goes out and does the vibration round. That data is then analysed and used to determine whether condition is deteriorating and make an assessment on when a scheduled restoration task might be required. Many organisations fall down in this area in that they diligently do the CBM rounds, collect and analyse the CBM data, but then do not take action quick enough to address an impending failure. If this happens you still end up with an unplanned failure that needs urgent attention and you have spent money on CBM, but did not get the benefit (i.e. reducing downtime and potentially collateral damage due to the failure). It might be that your CMMS team was thinking of a solution where the CMMS actually triggers the work order based on condition data - that is a step further down the implementation curve and one that can be wrought with other issues like false positives. As with many of these things start with small steps. Regarding the 20:80 ratio of PM:CBM tasks I would be careful in taking that as a hard rule of thumb, instead I would see it more as an aspiration especially in a complex, hazardous plant like a refinery where you will have a lot of time based compliance related maintenance. Also a ratio like that is never really our objective, it is merely a tool to get us to a highly reliable plant that is safe and with minimal cost. Before you make a big move on CBM I would actually first analyse your corrective workload to determine whether your PM program is effective in mitigating failures. If it is then your journey to CBM is really about efficiency and cost effectiveness. In that case I would start looking at the PMs that are the most costly across say a 5 or 10 year period when accounting for materials, services and internal labour. Take the worst offenders and analyse the failure mode that PM is mitigating and see if it can be done more efficiently by extending intervals or adopting a CBM approach. However, if your PM program is not effective in preventing significant failures I would first put your effort there (and that may or may not include CBM). Hope that helps.
  48. 1 point
    More basic articles that explain concepts like RCM, RBI, corrosion management, process safety.
  49. 1 point
    @Phil I can empathize with your lack of storeroom person, planner or scheduler. It is quite difficult to demonstrate to management the benefits of having these functions. I am unsure of the size of your organization and management will always try to cut cost by limiting manpower first, although (at least in my industry in my country) wages accounts for about 10% of the total OPEX. As such, cutting manpower (aka wages) is actually a drop in the bucket when it comes to cost savings. Ah well, gotta play with the hands we're dealt with eh? For your question on naming convention, I find ISO 14224 quite useful. In any case, I use the naming convention as below 1. For inventory & description in CMMS, the naming convention is "Equipment type or part, function" (e.g. O-ring, chemical pump or Pump, firewater) 2. For CMMS (in which I am assuming you are referring to the taxonomy for asset hierarchy/functional location? If not, do correct me), I use this convention "System>Package>Asset Tagging/Component/maintainable item>Child tag (if applicable)". The example here will be "PWG>T1000A>SDV1001>LSO1001" where PWG stands for Power Generation, T1000A is Generator A, SDV1001 is a shutdown valve and LSO1001 is the limit switch open for the said SDV. Of course you can expand the convention to suit the complexity of your facility. For our current set up, we go up to 9 levels of Functional Location. Do let me know if you need any clarification
  50. 1 point
    Dear All I have used few CMMS tools. In the end, my feelings are that like any other tool, best CMMS depends on user. I have following reasons to justify my answer: I have seen very good report through Macro based Excel files & very bad reports through MAXIMO or EMS I have seen most of the tools fields empty for many reasons which basically doesn't give you information I have seen wrong entries giving you wrong information. They are made so heavy that people are not able to enter everything. Generally CMMS is chosen based on many reasons sometimes out of even Maint Mgr scope like client want you to have particular system etc. There are following factors which makes any CMMS good or bad: How you have implemented it. I would say a person who has a knowledge of hands on should be in the implementation team. A lot of exercise is required on reporting & expectation from CMMS so that implementing team can be able to incorporate them. How users are trained: Most of CMMS fail because of this part. Either people are not trained, they are unwilling or don't like to enter everything. It shall be ensured that every level the fields are entered, counterchecked & saved. Responsibilities shall be very much given & followed. How many reports are generated: Once you have the data, how you are using them, Is the data giving you expected results, if not, make changes that are required. How it is AUDITED - In the end, even CMMS shall be audited. Generally I have seen people saying, " we are following all data & maintenance through XXXX & we don't need to audit. On the contrary, we must audit the reports & data otherwise the reports will be corrupt & will be useless. In the last, I would say an old saying I read somewhere " In the hands of an expert, a stick is powerful than sword & in the hands of an novice, a sword is weaker than a stick" Regards
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and use of We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..