When researchers at Stanford University, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), the University of California at Santa Barbara, the University of Utah, and Bolt, Beranek and Newman linked together the first five nodes of the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) in 1970, they never dreamed how important their collective innovation would become.
Over the last few years, we have seen a number of changes in our chosen field. For many years, maintenance was the term used for all stewardship of plant and equipment. Then reliability centered maintenance (RCM) started to take off and this saw the advent of reliability, or to be more correct, the term reliability. There was a plethora of job adverts, articles and presentations at conferences that included the term reliability. The strange thing was that in many cases, the content was no different than when it was called maintenance!
In August 2012, our maintenance team made the decision to move forward with upgrading the bolt-on computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) program on our Unix-based legacy system to a more advanced product that offers modern asset management functionality, such as builtin key performance indicators (KPIs), a standalone database to reduce integration and data storage issues, and the ability to define assets in a true hierarchy, rather than the flat list of assets stored in the legacy system.
Most of us have heard of the 80:20 rule: 80 percent of the consequences are caused by 20 percent of the root causes. This rule of thumb is based on a well-known business theory known as the Pareto Principle, reputed to have been hypothesized by an Italian economist back in 1906 who noted that 80 percent of the land in Italy at that time was owned by 20 percent of the population. The Pareto Principle is often cited in various and diverse business practices, such as explaining why 80 percent of sales come from 20 percent of most companies’ customer base, or why 80 percent of customer complaints come from 20 percent of customers.
A weekly collection of recommended articles and videos to boost your reliability journey. Right in your inbox
For many of us, the road to reliability has had many ups and downs. At times, we feel overwhelmed with the enormity of effort required to make a positive impact on our organizations. This is compounded early in our journey when we quickly realize how many tools, approaches and methodologies exist, and how many opportunities for improvement we have at our facilities. Trying to have the biggest impact we, at times, jump right to advanced methods. Many an effort has failed due to an advanced methodology being utilized without laying the basic groundwork required to ensure a sustainable success. We, as reliability professionals, need to understand the relationship and interactions of these approaches and provide a level of understanding throughout our organization. To that end, it is time to major in…cringe…shriek…wait for it…“Chemistry.”
Know who has a lot of irons in the fire? Industrial production managers. They are responsible for mistakes, accidents, injuries, theft, security and asset management. This is the person who will have answers to questions like, “Where’s the pallet jack?”
The industrial production manager is in charge of day-to-day team performance, making sure it all works together as quickly and cost-effectively as possible, all while turning out a quality product.
Monitorear torque se está convirtiendo en una práctica cada vez más común, presente en industrias como la del cemento, la industria marina y la de generación de electricidad. Permite a los usuarios tener una mejor entendimiento de las demandas operacionales de sus máquinas y hace posible la detección de fallas, especialmente en casos donde un diagnóstico mediante análisis de vibraciones se hace difícil. De esta manera, los usuarios pueden hacer las correcciones necesarias para asegurar una operación fluida y evitar fallos inesperados.
The debate over which software platform is best suited to manage physical assets continues. There are two main contenders: enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems offering a consolidated approach to tracking the organization’s activities and enterprise asset management (EAM) systems offering best-in-class functionality.
This is Part 2 of a two-part article. In the February/March 2014 issue, the How Is the Equipment Failing? article answered the question with a discussion on the value and methods of understanding how our equipment is failing. In Part 2, What Are We Doing to the Equipment?, we address the value and methods for understanding the services that we may or may not be providing our equipment.
THIS IS PART 4 of a five-part series entitled, Machinery Health Monitoring Depends on Accelerometers. Part 1 addressed the mechanical aspects of selecting and using accelerometers, while Part 2 examined the electronic aspects of dealing with those small signals. Part 3 focused on calibrating accelerometers to determine their sensitivity. Parts 4 and 5 will conclude with views of accelerometers attached to various machines so they can report on machinery health.
In the mind of an average layperson, reliability is most likely a concept comprised of the predictable, continuous function of a system or repeatable action. When I joined my company’s reliability team, I learned that the reliability of an asset can impact our company’s overall operations. Our Greenfield, Indiana, site is made up of multiple business units, occupying approximately one million square feet. Each business unit has a group of functions and a unique list of support requirements that are critical to its continuous operation. Our reliability team supports the function of these critical systems by working with our shops and craftspeople to facilitate those needs. As a layperson myself, it is because I am part of that group that I have really begun to understand what reliability truly is. I have also learned that the reliability of critical systems can be very different in scope, yet have the same expectation of reliable performance. It is with this concept in mind that we developed a process for managing the reliability of contracted services.
IS BETTER THAN 50 PERCENT accuracy an objective or goal for a condition monitoring program? Do you measure accuracy of recommendations as an output of your program? It is not unusual for paper mills with mature condition monitoring programs staffed by competent, skilled and experienced technicians to achieve over 95 percent accuracy in the prediction of a failure, and somewhat less accuracy, due to lack of knowledge and data, of the recommended corrective action, which for some, is still a whole lot better than flipping a coin. But how about a goal of zero unpredicted failures?
ChatGPT with ReliabilityWeb: Find Your Answers Fast