Jump to content

Jefferson Voo

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Jefferson Voo last won the day on July 20 2018

Jefferson Voo had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

1 Follower

About Jefferson Voo

  • Rank
    Member

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

282 profile views
  1. @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
  2. Hi @Freek Doornkamp, What you guys have sounds interesting. I would like to learn/know more on how/what you guys did to implement this as I think what you did is excellent! 1. When you said link a set of tools to analyze the problem, do you mean your RCA tools are online/within the CMMS? Do you guys use other RCA other than RATIO in this case? 2. Actual failure modes and causes are logged where exactly do you log this? Is it under CM or is there a separate log just for this? As for my company, currently, the RCA results are stored in the RCA database, and the closing of the report of the failed equipment does not directly link (depending on the tech) to the RCA. As such, it could be slightly more difficult for us to know if an RCA has been done if another similar failure has occured in another facility.
  3. Jim, Since we are an Operations & Maintenance Company that dabbles in a little software development, so our software are quite rudimentary 1. Yes, basically a work order number is required in order to "withdraw" an item with the exception of consumables 2. Min/Max level is a work in progress. Currently concentrating on major equipments. It does not link to procurement system (as of now), as the procurement system is a different system (and it costs quite a bit to integrate). As of now, matco generates the list of consumables (based on the min max) and supervisors generates their orders of parts as necessary. This is done outside of CMMS (plans to generate the order list within the system by Q1 2019) 3.WOrk in progress, so not all. It also shows graphically the location of the bin/rack where it is kept. 4. Yes, although quite weak here. Currently only associated in terms of packages and only critical equipment. Future plan is to QR code the major equipment, when a Tech scans the QR code, it will display a list of spares that are associated with it including what's in stock 5. The taxonomy is Package(or Brand), then item type, model number or serial number. ( i hope i understood this question correctly, if it is not the answer you are looking for, perhaps you can clarify?) 6. Yes. They use it to get info to order parts, but basically it is for allocating of parts Cheers, Jeff
  4. Hi @Sasa Ciglar, currently we are using in-house developed CMMS using FileMaker Pro. It is quite simple and fit for purpose, so you can't expect full cycle functionality like SAP or Maximo system. What we have done is carve out the procurement and finance part of it and just concentrate on the inventory and work order sections. @Erik Hupje Great points!
  5. Just a little background, I manage the CMMS for my company which serves multiple facilities (offshore platforms, FPSO and the like) 1. Are your inspections detailed or general statements? Currently, it is generic to the equipment type. However, a detailed procedure is available for the technicians that are developed by the team of that particular facility. However, there is a report template for each type of work order. This is to gather consistent info for each type of equipment 2. Do you included lubrication instructions - location of lubrication points, type of lubrication, amount of lubrication, brand of lubrication etc? This is made available by the particular facility maintenance team, but not in the CMMS. CMMS only calls for lubrication for example. 3. Do you separate Inspections that require equipment downtime vs those that require visual, auditory and/or hands on with no downtime required? Yes 4. Do your inspection sheets require the technicians to apply check marks to indicate the completion of inspections? Depending on equipment and type of inspection, but I find this a great practice. 5. Does your PM inspection system include tasks related to the replacement of parts based on manufacturer recommendations? If so, do you include work instructions to replace the parts? No, when there is a need for replacement, then it is considered as CM. Instructions is normally as per O&M manual from vendor. 6. Does your PM inspections included a parts list? Separate sheet/procedure. Not in the CMMS 7. Does your PM inspection sheet or work order include a picture of the asset you are performing tasks against? No 8. Do you use outside services to perform tasks? Certain services where we require a vendor rep for warranty purposes. For example 8K hours of major rotating equipment. However, we keep costs as low as possible by using vendor supervisor and perform the job with our own crew 9. Does your PM inspection include Lock Out / Tag Out procedures? It calls for LOTO, but LOTO procedure is not included in the work order. It's a separate document. Some facilities call it Energy Isolation (which includes mechanical, piping) 10. Do your PM inspections require a sign off by a supervisor etc? Yes 11. Do you use a audit system to insure PM inspections are being performed as per the inspection task list? If so, who does the audit and how often is this done? Only % of PM closed vs availability and/or uptime. This is done monthly. But the audit does not go into the detail as I suspect what you are asking 12. Do your PM inspections include an estimated amount of time to complete the task? How much of your total weekly available resource time is spent on PM inspections ... % of time? Yes, in manhours. Management is not concerned about the % of time as yet, so it is not tabled out 13. How often do you review your PM inspections and make revisions? What constitutes when a revision needs to be made? Who makes these decisions? Not a good practice by us, 1. only when something goes wrong (sometimes they do not even review it, only trying to "scapegoat" some one) 2. When a request for change has been made. Maintenance Manager is the focal person 14. What percentage of your PM inspections are based on a fix scheduled verses other types of CBM techniques? Even the CBM is on a fixed schedule. For example we do vibration analysis 6 monthly, and thermography 6 monthly. Only our engines are on running hours based. As such, I would estimate at least 90% of the PM are on a fixed schedule I have attached a sample checksheet that we use Gas_Detector_Checksheet_rev1.pdf
  6. Hi @Jim Vantyghem, great points and articulately put together. And it being long winded enables me to understand the points more actually also, your passion does shine through. I really appreciate that. Not that that I didn't try to bring this up, I guess I need to change tactics on how to bring this message across. I can see it happening, but since there have been no disasters happening, then management has decided to turn a deaf ear to the plight of the field techs and operators. Anyhow, I'll need to change tack to help those guys
  7. Hi @Jim Vantyghem, Thanks for the detailed response. I would also like to add one point which may not be applicable to other industries. I'm working on the offshore Operations & Maintenance industry as of now. The estimated manhours would be a good indication of how many maintenance personnel are required for the day to day maintenance offshore and as such, we can propose the optimal number of crew required to our clients. These manhours should be determined by 1. number of equipment on board and 2. maintenance strategy. Normally, CM with larger scopes are handled with the assistance of a "roving crew". However, as of now, the numbers of crew on board is determined by gut-feel and experience (although we may not be too far off from the optimal number), which may not be a great answer should the client probe for an explanation. Repair history as related to RCM would be ideal, if the results are implemented. So far, it seems that some departments are just implementing RCM for the sake of implementing it, without measuring efficiency. "This has failed? Just do more surveillance!" But no changes are made to the maintenance. Looking forward to hearing your opinion
  8. Hi @Jim Vantyghem, Just curious to know, does the data collected also contain actual hours/manhours required to conduct a task? Are also the estimated hours only wrench time? Reason I ask (disclaimer, I have not seen a lot of CMMS databases), is that from the few that I observed, there are quite a number of facilities where the estimated manhours exceed the available manhours. However, the PM closing rate is still at 99-100% (CM closing rate is 100%, however I'm sure there are others that were not reported) and uptime is still as per KPI (depending on facility, ranging from 95-98%). So, what I deduce here (although I did not look into it seriously) is that 1. The estimated manhours required is grossly exaggerated (or it includes non wrench time e.g. permit application) 2. The field guys are taking a lot of shortcuts Interested to know more of your thoughts and experience
  9. I intend to use the points you have put forth here (https://www.roadtoreliability.com/sell-planning-scheduling-productivity-improvement/) and to sell maintenance management system to my upper management. Management buy in would be the most difficult here in my opinion, and there after to assign the driver. Perhaps the other forumers have some other perspective I have missed? Would welcome input Anyway, great articles you have @Erik Hupje!
  10. Hi @Erik Hupje, thanks and congratulations to you too! Your feat was even more impressive! As in the course, back then at least, if you have listened to the presenters, it should have been quite easy as I guess they want to boost their reputation with higher passing % of attendees. I guess the main reason I let it lapsed is due to perceived lack of advantages in my current situation.
  11. Hi Erik, I have passed it in 2015. My membership have lapsed now and I didn't renew it as it is not widely recognized here in Malaysia, and the courses to get the points are not as easy to get locally. If memory serves me right, the exam itself was not extremely difficult, as it was just a couple of hours worth of exam to regurgitate what you have (or should have) listened to after a 3 day presentation/course. I guess the trickiest ones are the definitions Have you attended the CMRP?
  12. My organization is using Tripod Beta. I have used 5 Whys and Kelvin Topset and they are quite similar to Tripod Beta. I don't have a favourite. Result of the RCA is quite highly dependent on how the main question is framed, as such a highly trained facilitator is a must for this exercise. Tracking of actions being closed is well managed by ways of completing the form that triggers it. A problem has happened in the facility, the technician(s) will fill up the form and log it to the reliability team. Operations team will call for an RCA, where the results are then filled in the same form for action. However, one weakness is no one is tracking the effectiveness of the action though. How should we determine the period of observation to say that the problem has really gone away?
  13. Issues I have are (I guess there is always more than one!) 1. Maintenance is seen as an expense, as such not the right people are staffed or as what @Evaldus mentioned, people just want the post and pay, but can't execute the job 2. Management have clear way on how to derive a maintenance strategy (and worse, do not listen), resulting in a reactive mode or strategy that is not effective. 3. No formal maintenance management system (especially for an organization with more than one facility), which results in confusion for all involved from Technicians to Planners to Supervisors to Managers. Just these three are enough to cause chaos and result in a reactive mode of maintenance
  14. Hi everyone. Thanks Erik for the initiative. I'm Jeff from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I have about 16 years of experience in maintenance mainly in the control & automation discipline of various industries. Currently in the oil & gas industry. Hopefully I can help others and I know I will definitely learn new things from others as we all still learn new things every day! Cheers!
  15. Jefferson Voo

    Jefferson Voo

×
×
  • 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..