Jump to content
Test ×

Erik Hupje

Founder
  • Content Count

    245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by Erik Hupje

  1. Hi @UptimeJim great to have you on board and part of this community. Looking forward to reading your thoughts and advice.
  2. Erik Hupje

    MTBF

    Hi @Gladiator, some quick answers: 1. if you experience 1 failure in 168 operating hours then the MTBF is 168 (168/1) and your equipment uptime is 98.8% (168-2/168). MTBF is not very useful to calculate on a weekly basis in my view, better opting for uptime if you want a weekly metric. 2. indeed OEE = Availability x Performance x Quality which useful in a manufacturing environment where your production line can suffer from availability losses, performance (capacity) losses and quality losses. If your production line does not have a rejection rate i.e. you never produce underspec product then your quality would indeed be 100%. If your production line can not slow down and experience a loss in capacity, i.e. it either runs at 100% of capacity or it does not run then the performance factor is not relevant. So if both quality and performance are not relevant to your operation then you're basically just using Availability. 3. I can't really make any sensible recommendations on how to improve reliability in your plant, without knowing a lot more. What I would suggest you do is to log all your downtime carefully, determine whether it is scheduled downtime due to PM's or unscheduled (reliability issues). For all unscheduled downtime assign a category and cause. Analyse the data and see where your downtime is coming from, then start tackling that issue. PS if you let me know what name you'd like to use I can update it for you in the back-ned of the community software
  3. That's quite a list @Jim Vantyghem and I recognise most if not all of them... in fact, I think it's a classic list of a highly reactive maintenance organisation that has been stretched too thin. I was just working on recording one of the course modules from my Planning & Scheduling course where I talk about the non-monetary benefits that an efficient planning & scheduling process brings. And I think one of the most important ones is that in a more efficient working environment frustration is reduced, because people waste less of their time, and feel more productive, there are less emergencies. That eventually leads to more ownership and people being able to take pride in their work once again.
  4. Erik Hupje

    MTBF

    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.
  5. Welcome @Cornelius Mpesi, great to have you part of this community and looking forward to hearing more from you.
  6. Welcome back @Jim Vantyghem and congratulations with the new role! Looking forward to reading more about your journey, the challenges and how you intend to solve them.
  7. Welcome to the community @Erick Lubat great to have you with us.
  8. 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.
  9. Erik Hupje

    Welcome to Pages

    Welcome to Pages! Pages extends your site with custom content management designed especially for communities. Create brand new sections of your community using features like blocks, databases and articles, pulling in data from other areas of your community. Create custom pages in your community using our drag'n'drop, WYSIWYG editor. Build blocks that pull in all kinds of data from throughout your community to create dynamic pages, or use one of the ready-made widgets we include with the Invision Community. View our Pages documentation
  10. Hi @abhinav what you describe is a common problem and is one of the reasons why I always recommend that the schedule is agreed jointly between operations & maintenance, but ultimately owned by someone in your facility who has both operations and maintenance reporting to him/her e.g. a plant manager. This person should in his/her role review a range of performance indicators like schedule compliance, machine uptime but also preventive maintenance compliance and be accountable for a balance in performance. But yes, easier said than done sometimes.
  11. Thanks for sharing those @Jim Vantyghem
  12. Not a problem @Jim Vantyghem it has taken me longer than I expected to prepare all the course content, but my focus has been quality rather than schedule.
  13. Hi @Derek Brown building up equal run hours on both machines is indeed not a great idea in my opinion as you run the risk that age-related failure modes occur on both machines around the same time and potentially within the time it takes to get one pump returned back to service, then you end up with both out at the same time. If you explain the above carefully, I've found that it is usually not too hard to convince operators that they need to build a differential in run hours by for example running pump A 2 or 3 times as long as pump B. And I have indeed in the past set tasks like this up in the CMMS to make sure it happens. We did this for rolls-royce turbines offshore and ran one for 2 months and then the other for 1 month with the idea to increase the run hour differential. The 1-month difference in run duration was all that we could get roll-royce to accept without having to apply preservation to the machine that was not running for that 1 month. Also, you could consider using your control system to initiate this, with the control room operator only having to accept that the system can change-over pumps. The other alternative is to run a real duty-standy whereby the standby only runs when the duty is under maintenance or has failed... but this is much harder for most people to accept and you then really need to make sure you set up your maintenance regime in your CMMS accordingly as you will need to test the start of the standby pump for hidden failures and need to think about preservation requirements for the machine that is not running for pro-longer periods.
  14. I thought I would just share a bit of an update on the online Maintenance Planning & Scheduling course: I have finished all the course content and am at the moment scripting the course modules so that I can start recording by the end of April with a launch late May. I have uploaded a set of sample slides into a gallery in case you're interested to see what the material looks like. This is just a random set of slides from a few of the modules. Link to Slide Gallery: https://community.roadtoreliability.com/gallery/category/6-maintenance-planning-scheduling-course/ The launch in May will most likely be a pilot program for 20-30 students to iron out any bugs in the learning management system etc. These students will get a significant discount on the course (40%) in return for providing feedback and a course testimonial. Despite the big discount these students will get lifetime access to the course. If you're interested in the pilot program please express your interest in the course, if you have not done so already. To do so, simply go to this page and register: https://www.roadtoreliability.com/planning-scheduling-online-training/
  15. Slide from the online course Implementing Maintenance Planning & Scheduling. This slide is from Module 10 which teaches how to successfully implement a maintenance planning & scheduling process in an organisation.

    © Road to ReliabilityTM

  16. Slide from the online course Implementing Maintenance Planning & Scheduling. This slide is from Module 10 which teaches how to successfully implement a maintenance planning & scheduling process in an organisation.

    © Road to ReliabilityTM

  17. Slide from the online course Implementing Maintenance Planning & Scheduling. This slide is from Module 10 which teaches how to successfully implement a maintenance planning & scheduling process in an organisation.

    © Road to ReliabilityTM

  18. Slide from the online course Implementing Maintenance Planning & Scheduling. This slide is from Module 10 which teaches how to successfully implement a maintenance planning & scheduling process in an organisation.

    © Road to ReliabilityTM

  19. Slide from the online course Implementing Maintenance Planning & Scheduling. This slide is from Module 10 which teaches how to successfully implement a maintenance planning & scheduling process in an organisation.

    © Road to ReliabilityTM

  20. © Road to ReliabilityTM

  21. © Road to ReliabilityTM

  22. © Road to ReliabilityTM

  23. © Road to ReliabilityTM

  24. © Road to ReliabilityTM

  25. © Road to ReliabilityTM

×
×
  • 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..