Maintenance Strategies Driven by Failure Analysis Paul R. Casto

Reliability2.0Onthewebathttp://www.maintenanceconference.
com
Abstract MaintenanceStrategiesDrivenbyFailureAnalysis PaulR.Casto While the crises seen in late 2008 and early 2009 have been averted, the current business climate has reducedconsumerdemand,whichisdrivingcompaniestofocusingevenmoreheavilyoncostreduction to improve profitability. This downturn also means that operating risk profiles may have changed, which makes the maintenance budget a primary target for cost reduction. To optimize both risk and cost, the interrelationships between reliability, maintenance and operations must be considered. It is well known and widely accepted that reliability and maintenance are inextricably woven together, and the fate of each group is tied to the success of the other. Further, operations personnel work with the equipment on a daily basis and their operating knowledge can provide key information to identify and prevent processes and conditions that lead to equipment damage. Using this knowledge to create a failurebased, FMEAdriven maintenance strategy will yield more cost effective risk reduction tasks. Of equalimportance,linkingtheoperatorsintotheworkmanagementsystemwillprovideamoreeffective methodofworkidentification. Keywords:Reliability, Maintenance,AssetPerformance Management, Sustainability, Risk Management, FMEA,RCM
Copyright2010Reliabilityweb.com.Allrightsreserved.
Reliability2.0Onthewebathttp://www.maintenanceconference.com
MaintenanceStrategiesDrivenbyFailureAnalysis Introduction The goal of Asset Performance Management (APM) is to safely maximize predictable production at the lowest sustainable cost while addressing the risk profile of the business. This is primarily achieved by implementing APM best practices, which use datadriven reliability methods and sustainable maintenance practices. The objective of a reliability and maintenance strategy is to provide the minimum amount of maintenance work required to meet the business needs of the operation. To achieve this, reliability and maintenance must be focused on and structured to support and understand thechangingrequirementsofthebusinessunits. Reliability is about failure elimination, and maintenance is about work processes. These functions are inextricably woven together with the fate of one being dependent on the success of the other. While there are many tools and techniques available for the plant maintenance manager in the quest to improve APM performance, none is more powerful than the effective and efficient use of the maintenance workforce. This workforce is the primary method to execute repair and improvement tasks. Further, the workforce labor and material usage make up the majority of the plant maintenance cost. Optimization of this groups work plan is paramount to lowering cost, improving reliability and meetingtheriskprofileofthebusiness. CurrentBusinessClimate The past two years have led to wide swings in the business landscape. The period from late 2003 through the first quarter 2008 was a period of sustained growth. Beginning in mid2008, the economy began a downturn and unemployment began to climb rapidly. The onset of the banking crises accelerated this slowdown, and, by the end of 2008, unemployment was soaring, and the output of manyplantswasdownto50%ofcapacity. Although the U.S. government responded with stimulus and dramatically increased the money supply, thedepthofthecurrentrecessionwasthegreatestsincethedownturnfrom1929tomid1933.During thatrecession,theDowsawfiveralliesgreaterthan20%,followedbyfurthermarketdecline.Whilethe manufacturing sector has seen some recent gains, the longevity of this recovery period is questionable, as customers may be replenishing their inventories and government debt climbs to unprecedented levels. ChangingRiskProfiles These economic conditions have changed the risk profile that most businesses must manage. These new profiles include lower levels of production, greater variability in production schedules, and shorter windowsforproductdelivery.Theseconditionsresultinriskprofileswherelowercostsareneededand slower repairs can be tolerated, but the need to respond to orders dependably is required. These changing risk profiles are manifested in maintenance as cost cutting while still requiring critical equipmenttobeoperational.
Copyright2010Meridium,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
As a result of this, most maintenance organizations have seen dramatic reductions in budgets over the past18months.Thesecutsareoftenmadewithoutregardtotheimpactonequipmentreliability,what work will be eliminated or deferred, the impact to workforce and the long term strategy for continuous improvement in APM. The most significant impact of these cuts may be to the sustainability of the existing reliability and maintenance programs. The struggle to "sustain the gain" over the long run remains a major challenge to organizations. Programs get implemented, produce results and then two or three years later they have lost their effectiveness and are back at, or close to, ground zero. The repetitive nature of this problem can often be related to the cyclic changes in risk tolerance the businesses require. In this environment, an important aspect of sustainable reliability and maintenance (R&M)programsistheabilitytoadjusttotheseneeds.Buildingactionablemaintenanceplansbasedon failure analysis provides the flexibility to lower cost, improve reliability and adjust the work for changes inriskprofiles. TheSymbioticNatureofReliabilityandMaintenance Theinterdependencebetweenreliabilityandmaintenanceisbestillustratedwhenconsideringthatthey intersectatthefailuremodelevel.Thatis,maintenanceiseitherrepairingafailurethathasoccurredor performing work to predict and prevent failures that have not yet occurred. From this circumstance, a maintenancepostulatecanbedevelopedwhichsays: Allmaintenanceactivityshouldbefocusedonfailure: 1. 2. 3. 4. Elimination Prevention Prediction Control
Developing a maintenance strategy based on these four failure mitigation principles requires that the equipment failure modes are analyzed in detail. This analysis is central to creating actionable maintenance plans that contain optimized risk mitigating tasks, which can then be applied based on the risk vs. cost profile the business units can support. The optimized integration of reliability and maintenanceatthefailuremodelevelisastrongtoolandisoneaspectofmaximizingAPMresults. LeveragingtheR&MStrategy Thesefailuremitigationstrategiescanbeleveragedforimprovedresultsbyexpandingthe ownershipof equipment reliability to include operations. Operators are knowledgeable of the equipment operating characteristics and circumstances surrounding many of the failure modes and have an acute understanding of the failure consequences. This experience equips operations to play a key role in the development,executionandsustainabilityofmaintenanceandreliabilitystrategies.
This crossfunctional failure mitigation strategy requires the identification of conditions, processes and upsets which can lead to equipment damage before the damage occurs and the failure mechanism has begun to deteriorate the equipments performance. This is illustrated on the Installation, Potential Failure, Functional Failure (IPF) curve shown in figure 1. With thisproactiveapproachidentifiedasakeygoal,consider the synergy gained when operations is included in the effort. Operations personnel work with the equipment on a daily basis, thus their operating knowledge Figure1 provides key information to identify and prevent processes and conditions that lead to equipment damage. Linking operator knowledge into a maintenancestrategybasedonfailureanalysiswillyieldmoreeffectiveriskreductiontasks.Inaddition, byparticipatingintaskcreation,operatorswillfeel"ownership"ofthesolution,whichisapivotalfactor inprogramsustainability. BuildingMaintenancePlansBasedonFailureAnalysis Creating maintenance plans based on failure analysis isa basic element of improving assetperformance in a manufacturing plant. Properly designed maintenance plans integrate reliability principles with actionable maintenance tasks,andthroughtheapplicationofthesetasksmaintenancecanimpactasset performance. Developing these maintenance plans is best done using a systematic approach implementedbyacrossfunctionalteam.Thestepsofthisapproachcanbesummarizedasfollows: FormationoftheFailureAnalysisTeam The formation of the analysis team is an important part of the overall strategy development. This team should provide the technical and operational expertise, the interface to their maintenance, operations and supervisory peers, and development and debugging of the plans. The team is typically comprised of: 1. 2. 3. 4. ReliabilityEngineer/Facilitator Operator Mechanic TeamLeader(Foreman)
Otherresourcescanbebroughtintotheteamonanadhocbasisasneeded.Iftheteammembershave the correct skills sets, the analysis process is honed, and the team leader has considerable reliability experience.Theteamscanoftenbereducedtothreemembers:operator,mechanicandteamleader.In this case, the team leader will have extensive handson plant experience, demonstrated experience applying reliability tools and strategies, and is skilled in failure analysis facilitation. Other resources neededforfailureanalysiswillbeutilizedasneededonanadhocbasis.
EquipmentandProcessMapping The next step in the process is to map the process flow and the layout of the supporting manufacturing equipment. The mapping process is similar to the Six Sigma and lean mapping process. This is a powerful tool and the resulting map will help the team visualize the process and understand the equipment. The map is also useful in identifying system constraints as well as production bottlenecks, anditwillfacilitateequipmentcriticalityanalysis.Itisalsohelpfulingettingtheteammemberstolearn aspectsoftheequipmentandprocessesthattheymaynotbeintimatelyfamiliarwith. CriticalityAnalysis Criticality ranking is an important step in identifying what type of maintenance strategy should be applied to individual equipment. There are known and accepted processes to perform criticality ranking, which is usually done by a crossfunctional team operating with clear guidelines on how to performtheanalysis.Criticalityisdeterminedbyintegratingtheprobabilityandconsequenceoffailure. Factors such as safety, environmental impact, risk to production loss, replacement cost and maintenancecostaretypicallyincludedaspartoffailureconsequence.Theconsequencesoffailurecan alsobeweightedbythefactorsmentionedaboveandusedtodetermineoverallriskranking. The criticality analysis is typically done at the equipment level, and the output will rank the equipment from most to least critical. This may be represented as high, medium and low, or with a numbering system such as 15. The highest criticality should contain no more than 5 to 10% of the equipment, the important (medium level) equipment 30% to 60%, and lower levels should cover 30% to 50% of the equipment. Using these guidelines, the bulk of the analysis work will be done on 40%60% of the plant equipment. A problem occurs when organizations want to rank the vast majority of their equipment at thehighestlevel,whichhindersthedevelopmentofeffectiveR&Mplansandwillleadtoexcessive(non valueadded)maintenancework.Disciplinemustbeexercisedtoadheretocriticalityguidelines. Usingtheserankings,acomprehensiveassetmaintenancestrategycanbeapplied.Thesestrategieswill contain a mix of tasks that are optimized to mitigate failure based on the criticality of the equipment. The strategies applied to equipment with higher criticality rankings require more analysis and often result in more complex maintenance strategies. An example of maintenance strategies associated with criticalityratingsmaybeasfollows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ReliabilityCenteredMaintenance(RCM)methodologies Equipmentcentricfailuremodeandeffectsanalyses(FMEAs) Analysisofexistingmaintenanceplans(oftencalledPMoptimization) Applicationofpredefinedmaintenanceplans(basedonequipmentclassandservice) Basicequipmentcare
FailureAnalysis Tobuildmaintenanceplansbasedonfailureanalysis,asystematicworkprocessshouldbefollowed.For the critical and important ranked equipment this may be done using classical RCM, RCM Blitz or basic
equipmentcentricFMEAs.Theseprocessesarewellknownandacceptedandcanbeapplieddirectlyto theequipmenttoevaluatefailuresmodes,causesandeffects.Foranyofthesemethodologies,FMEAis at the heart of failure analysis and development of the associated mitigating tasks. FMEA focuses on failuremodesandcausesthatleaddirectlyorindirectlytoequipmentfailures.Someoftheseare: Gradualequipmentdeterioration Processupsetsthatdamageequipment Humanerror Variationinoperationalparameters Variationfromstandardoperatingprocedures Improperequipmentinstallation,repairandmaintenance
The resulting tasks are designed to mitigate the causesofthefailuresinaproactivemanner.That is,manyofthetaskswilladdressissuesontheIPF curve(Figure1)priortothepotentialfailurepoint (P) being reached. The resulting actions prevent equipment damage and lengthen the operating life of the equipment by extending the IPF curve totheright(overtime)asshowninfigure2. RiskAnalysis
Figure2
One of the outputs of the initial FMEA process is an unmitigated risk index, which can be modified for user preference but, at a minimum, it accounts for the likelihood and consequence of the failure. This indexmaybeusedtofilterthosefailuremodesfrom theanalyses that havelowrisk.Theoutputofthis filtering process will focus the plan on the highest risk failures. Typically, a cutoff value for the risk indexisestablished,and,forthoseitemswhichexceedthisvalue,riskreductiontasksaredeveloped. These tasks are then evaluated and a new risk index (mitigated risk index) is developed to measure the impact of the tasks on risk reduction. The effectiveness of the tasks can be evaluated vs. implementation cost, and, based on the risk reduction value, a further filtering process applied. This processwillfocustheresultsoftheanalysistocreatethehighestvaluemaintenanceplan. MitigatingTaskDevelopment The mitigating tasks are developed as part of the FMEA process and they are filtered based on the risk and cost profile for the business. The goal of these mitigating tasks is to proactively eliminate process, operating and maintenance problems that lead to equipment damage. Typical mitigating tasks resulting fromtheanalysisinclude:
1. Developmentofstandardizedworkprocedures a. Operations b. Maintenance c. Contractors d. Rebuilds 2. Timebasedmaintenanceactions a. Preventivemaintenance b. Lubrication c. Cleaning d. Minorrepairs 3. Conditionmonitoring a. Predictivetechnologies b. Inspections i. Operator ii. Maintenance c. Diagnosticsystems d. Processmonitoring 4. Equipmentdesign a. Poorequipmentdesignrequiringupgrades b. Redesignstoimprovereliability c. Redesigntoimprovemaintainability Typical project results indicate that task breakdown by group may be as seen in figure 31. This chart indicatesthat60%ofthe tasks(by numberoftasks) belong totheoperationsgroup,dueto the number of operator inspections that come from the FMEA. It is worthy to note that, if operations werent included on the failure analysis team and subsequently participating in the design of the maintenance strategy, almost 60% of the mitigating tasks (risk reduction tasks) would not have been included in the finalplan.Thisaspectofbuildingmaintenanceplansusingacrossfunctionalfailureanalysisteamisnot seen in traditional maintenance approaches and is often overlooked. Clearly, this method offers a significantadvantageovertraditionalplandevelopment.
Task Breakdown by Group
16%
Operations Maintenance 24% 60% Reliability
Figure3
A breakdown of mitigating tasks by type is shown in figure 42, indicating that the proactive condition monitoringtasksmakeup60%ofthetotaltasksbytype.Thisisinalignmentwiththeproactivestrategy illustratedinfigure1.
5% 27% 60%
Breakdown of Tasks by Type

8% Condition Montioring Preventive Maint Mnt/Ops Procedures Redesigns
Figure4
IntegrationofProactiveOperatorInspectionTasks Operatorsknowtheoperatingparametersoftheirprocessesandequipmentand recognize when it isn't running correctly. Using this knowledge in building failurebased maintenance plans will identify mitigation tasks which are typically included in the operator rounds (inspections). These inspections tasks utilize the operators senses and knowledge base to detect process disturbances and equipment problems that are much harder to capture using sensor technology. Theseinspectionscancompriseupto50%oftheR&Mprogram'sproactivetasks. Further,duetotheproactivenatureoftheseinspections,criticaldataisobtained either prior to equipment damage occurring or very early in the failure process. Using handheld technology (Figure 5) as an enabler, the operator can easily and efficiently input conditions to create alarms. These alarms provide the basis for actions to be taken prior to the onset of performance degradation and equipmentdamage.
Figure5
The proactive operator inspections are a direct result of the FMEA process. Some examples of these are,butcertainlynotlimitedto: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Visualinspectionsuchlookingforleaks Inspectionsdependentontheoperatorssenses(forexample,itsoundsdifferent) Quantitativereadingofvalues,suchastheleveloflubricant Useofbasictools,suchasvibrationpen,heattape,etc. Equipmentsettings
Theexecutionofthesetaskswillalsovarybytimeperiods,whichmayinclude: 1. 2. 3. 4. Everyshift Onceadayormultipledays Onceaweekormultipleweeks Oncepermonth
Taken together, these tasks must be integrated into an executable operator round. This is a major responsibility of the operator as a member of the analysis team. The operator will organize the routes, dotheinitialrunandtestingoftheroutes,reviewandtesttherouteswiththeotheroperators,leadthe rolloutoftheroutes,andprovidethenecessarytrainingfortheusers. It is also worthy of note that using handhelds as an enabling technology provides the opportunity to set up routes and gather data on functions that are not related to reliability or operations. Some examples are: 1. 2. 3. 4. Safetyinspections Housekeeping Environmentalinspections MaintenancePMinspections
LinkingProactiveAlarmswiththeWorkManagementSystem Operatorshavebeenperforminginspectionsforyears,oftenrecordingtheirfindingsonpaperandmost recently using handhelds to perform standard process checks. And, the integration of operator inspectionsintothemaintenancestrategyisnotnew.However,theprocessasdescribedinthispaperis innovativeintwoareas: 1. The operator inspections were developed based on failure analysis. This results in proactive tasks which utilize the operators senses to identify process and equipment variations that can leadtoequipmentdamage(PriortoPontheIPFcurve). 2. Properly designed the handhelds provide a portal to link the operators work identification efforts into the work management system. This allows the efficient identification and dispatch offailurecausingdisturbances.Thisisillustratedinfigure7. Proactive work identification is driven by (1) allowing the operator to create alarms on outoflimit conditions at the point of detection and (2) processing these alarms into to the work management system (an EAM such SAP or a CMMS). The operator normally runs his/her route, creating alarms on the handheld screens. At the conclusion of the route, the handheld devices can be connected to the operatorscomputer,thealarmsreviewed,andanyotherrelevantinformationisadded.Thealarmsare
then processed to the work management system for work order creation, planning and scheduling. Wirelesstechnologycouldalsobeappliedandthealarmssentdirectlytotheworkmanagementsystem if desired. It should be noted that, if during the inspection, the operator finds a condition that requires immediateattention;thisishandledbythenormalemergencyworknotificationprocess. This process links the operator rounds input into the work selection process. This overall maintenance strategy and work selection process is normally managed by an Asset Performance Management (APM) system, which manages the data, creates alarms and passes the information to the work management system. Work management is typically done in the CMMS or EAM system. This process is shown in figure6below:
MetricsforEvaluatingStrategyPerformance This work process should be monitored closely in order to measure (1) progress of strategy development,(2)completenessofmitigatingtasks,and(3)bottomlineresults.Thesemeasuresshould focusinthreeareas: 1. CompletionofFMEAtasks Therewillbemanytasksresultingfromtheanalysisthatwillnotbecompletedimmediatelyand, dependingonthenatureofthetasks,thesecantakemonthstocomplete.Itiscriticalthatthe leadershipteammonitortheprogressagainstthetaskcompletionscheduleinordertoprovide neededresourcesandsupport.Themeasureswhichshouldbeconsideredare: a. PercentFMEAtaskscompleteintotal b. PercentFMEAtaskscompletebytaskcategory c. PercentFMEAtaskscompletebygroup Figure6
10
2. EffectivenessoftheProactiveStrategy Thedifferentelementsoftheproactivestrategydevelopedbythisworkprocessshouldbe measuredtounderstandthestrengths,weaknessesandeffectivenessofthestrategy.Some measureswhichshouldbeconsideredare: PercentofmaintenanceworkIdentifiedproactively Percentofworkfromconditionmonitoringtasks Percentofmaintenanceworkidentifiedthroughhandhelds Percentofinspectionroutescompleted 3. BottomLineResults Theresultsofthestrategymustbemeasuredinordertounderstandtheenterprisewide, bottomlinevaluethathasbeencreated,bothshorttermandlongterm.Somemeasuresfor considerationare: Percentreactivework Percentdowntime Increasedavailability Additionalrevenue Maintenancecost Oneofthemosttellingofallthemeasuresisthepercentageofreactivework.Therearevariouswaysto definereactiveworkbutgenerallyitisworkthatmustbedoneimmediately,isunplanned,andbreaks into the weekly schedule. It is normally the result of a breakdown, safety, or environmental issue. As the failure based maintenance plans are implemented, changes in the levels of reactive work should be seenquickly.Thefirststepinanyimprovementprogramistostabilizemaintenanceinthetargetedarea byloweringreactivework.Thisisdonebyaddressingfailuresandrespondingtotheproactiveworkthat is identified from the maintenance plans and especially operator rounds. These actions will lower reactive work because the work is being identified in order to correct defects before the failure has occurred, and, in some cases, before equipment degradation has begun. As these proactively identified items are addressed, the level of reactive work will drop, and maintenance resources can be utilized moreeffectively. Itshouldbenotedthatoncetheplanisimplemented,andproactiveworkisbeingidentified,thesingle mostimportantelementofsuccessisperformingtheproactiveworkandaddressingthefailurebeforeit occurs.Iftheoperationsandmaintenanceorganizationsfailtotakeadvantageofthepriorknowledge ofimpendingfailures,theprogramwillnotachievethedesiredresults. InformationFlow Centerpiece to the approach described in this paper is the ability to obtain condition monitoring data, process this data, and efficiently convert this information into proactive maintenance actions. A critical part of this is the management of the overall information flow. As can be seen from figure 3, the
a. b. c. d.
a. b. c. d. e.
11
majority of mitigation tasks can be categorized as condition monitoring. Figure 2 indicates that the majority of the tasks (by number) are implemented by operations, due to the large number of operator inspectiontasksthatareidentifiedintheFMEAprocess.Theperformanceoftheseinspectionshasbeen illustrated using industrial handheld devices. In addition, there are other sources of condition monitoring data that must be analyzed. This complete set of data must be integrated and communicated to the users via asset health indicators. This information, when properly structured and displayed,canbereviewedbyuserstoquicklytounderstandthealarmsandassesstheoverallhealthof theassets. The ideal informationflow system should integrate all data from predictive technology, process historians, diagnostic systems, and engineering analysis. The data flow should be bidirectional where applicable and linked to the asset performance management system where it can be reviewed, converted to a work request, and sent to the work management system or otherwise be dispositioned. The objective of this data structure is to maximize information effectiveness with as little manual interventionaspossible.Thisinformationflowisillustratedinfigure7shownbelow. Figure7 Results One of the primary tools in the manufacturing plant to improve equipment reliability and raise asset performance is the maintenance strategy. Maintenance and reliability intersect at the failure mode and thisinterrelationshipisexemplifiedinthecreationofimprovedmaintenanceplansusingfailureanalysis. A key result of these improved maintenance plans will be a reduction of reactive work. A secondary effect of this reduction will be observed in work planning and scheduling. As the reactive work is
Figure6
12
reduced, this will free up resources to focus on planning and executing proactive work, which will lead toafurtherreductioninreactivework.Theimpactofthiscyclecanbedramatic.Theseresultshighlight the need to integrate the area planners and schedulers with the implementation of these maintenance plansinordertomaximizethissynergy. Another area that is substantially impacted by crossfunctional failure analysis is safety. Ten to twenty percent of recommendations resulting from this process will be focused on correcting unsafe conditions.3 Further, it has been shown that there is a positive correlation between the amount of immediate corrective and reactive work to total injuries.4 This positive correlation means that lowering theamountofreactiveworkwillalsolowerthetotalinjuriesincurred. Overallresultsfromimplementationofthisstrategyincludethefollowing: Significantincreaseinutilizationandavailability Reductioninreactiveworkbyupto50%5 Increaseinoperatorsknowledgeoftheirequipment Substantialimprovementinbacklogmanagementasmoreworkisreadytoschedule6 Significantincreaseinplannedmaintenancework Reductionin maintenance cost7(Thislargestimpactinthisreductionwillbeseenafterallofthe mitigatingtasksarecomplete.) ImprovementinMTBFandMTTR
Conclusions Many reliability and maintenance solutions have been implemented in manufacturing plants in recent years,andthesehaveseenvariedsuccess.Leveragingtheinteractiverelationshipbetweenmaintenance and reliability in order to improve overall asset performance can be a key differentiator and force multiplier in developing a successful APM initiative. To increase the probability of achieving the desired results, the potential success of mitigating tasks can be increased by integrating operations into the development and execution of the technical solution. Capitalizing on the knowledge and sensory capability of the operators will increase the options available to address failure causes, thereby multiplying the improvements of this approach versus a traditional maintenance program. Technology and information flow must be viewed as a work process enabler, and as a necessary step to execute failuredrivenmaintenancestrategiesefficiently. The results of this approach are proven to be impressive and far exceed those that are seen from many traditional R&M programs. However, this approach does require discipline and strong leadership to be successful. Further, it must emphasized that after implementation has begun and proactive work is being identified, the single most important element of success is completing the proactive work before equipment degradation begins or the failure occurs. When the operations and maintenance organizationstakeadvantageofthepriorknowledgeofanimpendingfailure,theprogramresultscanbe outstanding.
13
Abouttheauthor Paul Casto, CRE, CQE, CSSBB, CMRP, VP Value Implementation, Meridium, is a leading practitioner in reliability and maintenance improvement methodologies. He has handson experience in reliability, maintenance, operations and engineering in the chemical, steel, aluminum, automotive, aerospace, consumer goods and construction industries. Paul holds a Bachelors degree in Electrical Engineering from West Virginia University, a Masters degree in Engineering Management from Marshall University Graduate College, an MBA from Clemson University, and a Masters in Maintenance Management and Reliability Engineering from the UT/Monash University program. He is currently doing additional graduate work related to R&M improvement methodologies at the University of Tennessee. Paul is an ASQ certified Six Sigma Black Belt, holds ASQ certification in Reliability Engineering and Quality Engineering and is a SMRP Certified Maintenance and Reliability Professional. He is a member of the Universityof Tennessee'sMaintenanceandReliabilityCenter'sadvisoryboard,servesontheSMRPBest Practicescommittee,theSMRPCOAdvisoryCouncilandisanactivememberofASQandIEEE.
14
Endnotes
1
KathyLightandStevePowers,ManagingChangeinaMajorReliabilityImprovementEffort,MARCON2010 Proceedings(2010)Presentationslide15.
2
Ibid
KathyLightandStevePowers,ManagingChangeinaMajorReliabilityImprovementEffort,MARCON2010 Proceedings(2010)p.13 RonMoore,ReliabilityLeadershipforManufacturingExcellence,December2008Workshop,slide18in presentation.

5 4
MarkMitchell,ImprovingAssetStrategiesUsingHandhelds,MeridiumUsersConference,2008.Slide53. Ibid
KathyLightandStevePowers,ManagingChangeinaMajorReliabilityImprovementEffort,MARCON2010 Proceedings(2010)p.13.
15

Maintenance Strategies Driven by Failure Analysis Paul R. Casto

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Maintenance Strategies Driven by Failure Analysis Paul R. Casto

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reliability2.0Onthewebathttp://www.maintenanceconference.

Operations Maintenance 24% 60% Reliability

Breakdown of Tasks by Type

Theexecutionofthesetaskswillalsovarybytimeperiods,whichmayinclude: 1. 2. 3. 4. Everyshift Onceadayormultipledays Onceaweekormultipleweeks Oncepermonth

KathyLightandStevePowers,ManagingChangeinaMajorReliabilityImprovementEffort,MARCON2010 Proceedings(2010)p.13 RonMoore,ReliabilityLeadershipforManufacturingExcellence,December2008Workshop,slide18in presentation.

S-ar putea să vă placă și