The Top 10 Myths Of Reliability Management
BY RICK HOFFMAN
INTRODUCTION
According to the dictionary a myth is a
“notion based more on tradition or
convenience than on fact.” There are a
number of myths surrounding Relia-
bility management. These myths can
often lead to poor decisions that
increase cost, reduce reliability and in
some cases compromise safety. This
paper will challenge the top 10 myths,
offer a dose of reality and present an
alternate way of approaching the issue.
Case histories will be presented to
illustrate the myth, and in some cases
tools will be included to improve the
work process.
THE TOP 10 MYTHS OF
RELIABILITY MANAGE-
MENT
10. You can always trust fabrication
shops that have industry certifica-
tion.
9. Myth 10 is not important since
you can sue the vendor.
8. Mechanical engineers know
everything .
7. Reliability is a project.
6. The craftsman is only involved in
repairs, not reliability.
5. Management will always support
the program.
4. You can trust everything on an
electronic screen.
3. The key to high reliability is
speedy repair.
2. Reliability performance is up to
the reliability superintendent.
10 — RELIABILITY®Magazine June 2001
1. If it worked once, it will work in
any service.
MYTH NUMBER 10:
YOU CAN ALWAYS TRUST
FABRICATION SHOPS THAT
HAVE INDUSTRY CERTIFI-
CATION
REALITY
Trusting a fabrication shop is like pick-
ing up a firearm. You may think the
shop will do a good job or the gun is
unloaded, but it is important to check
for sure. Even though a shop has vari-
ous code stamps or quality system cer-
tificates, the client must monitor the
work to assure a satisfactory product.
Shops should be qualified through
a comprehensive vendor assessment
program including evaluation of the
technical, quality, financial and man-
agement systems. The assessment
must be thorough enough to verify the
systems are actually functioning and
not just written in a QA manual. This
process should begin with a question-
naire and desktop review prior to visit-
ing the shop. Appendix 1 (visit our web
site at www.reliability-magazine.com
and click on “Myths Su r ro u n d i n g
Reliability Ma n a g e m e n t” for the
Appendices listed in this article) con-
tains a typical questionnaire used for
this activity. In the event the vendor
passes this step, a shop audit must be
conducted. Audits should be updated
if the vendor experiences a significant
change, such as a buyout or turnover
of the management team.
Vertical slice audits are an effective
way to determine if the management
systems are functioning. In this
method an operation such as a weld is
selected at random. The operation is
“vertically sliced” to look at all aspects
of this step in the fabrication process.
For example, the weld procedure spec-
ification (WPS), procedure qualifica-
tion record (PQR), welder certificate,
weld maps, rod control procedure,
fitup record, heat treatment record,
hydrotest record and test equipment
calibration data would be reviewed.
Normally if a few welds are sampled
using the “vertical slice” technique,
problems with the shop quality system
will be found. Appendix 2 contains a
typical audit checklist for welding.
When the order is placed for a
piece of equipment, a vendor surveil-
lance plan must also be implemented
to provide hold and witness points for
inspection during fabrication. Appen -
dix 3 contains an example of our Sup-
plier Surveillance Requirements (SSR)
forms. The SSR program defines the
inspection requirements for each piece
of equipment. The SSR’s are included
as a part of our engineering standards
and can be customized for special situ-
ations.
CASE HISTORY
The vendor assessment program has
been in place for about eight years.
During this period we have discovered
serious deficiencies in a number of fab-
rication shops. For example, we have
been to pressure vessel shops that hold
a code stamp where there is no engineer on staff or the pres-
ident of the company is the QA manager. In some cases the
owners indicated the QA manual is window dressing to get a
c e rtificate but is not implemented. We have been to
exchanger shops where customer requirements are ignored
and equipment is assembled without completing required
inspections. One of the most serious incidents was a relief
valve shop that had non-English speaking workers pulling
parts for three different relief valves and putting the parts in
one basket. Incorrect RV springs were found. These inci-
dents demonstrate that the owner must closely monitor the
work to assure a quality product.
Would you contract to have a house built and just show
up for closing? Most people visit the construction site fre-
quently to assure the job is being done correctly. Why should
we do less for equipment being installed in our process
plants?
MYTH NUMBER 9:
MYTH NUMBER 10 IS NOT IMPORTANT
SINCE YOU CAN SUE THE VENDOR
REALITY
The world is full of hungry lawyers who would be glad to
represent you. However, the reality is that unless injury
occurred due to negligence, the vendor would likely only
have to replace the defective equipment. The owner is stuck
with the problem, delay and production loss. Your insurance
policy to prevent these incidents is to establish engineering
standards, a good audit program, and inspect equipment
during fabrication.
CASE HISTORY
A vendor supplied a turbine trip throttle valve for a critical
ethylene refrigeration service for a large olefins facility. This
valve failed due to poor assembly practices, incorrect clear-
ances and poor testing. A spare valve provided by the same
vendor also had problems and required emergency repairs
prior to installation. As a result, several days of production
were lost. A review of the vendor’s contract liability was com-
pleted and it was determined liability was limited to repair or
replacement of the poorly constructed parts. The owner was
stuck with the production loss which was thousands of times
the value of the parts. The point is that the owner is holding
the bag on production losses and must protect the company
interest via a comprehensive vendor monitoring and inspec-
tion program.
MYTH NUMBER 8:
MECHANICAL ENGINEERS KNOW EVERY-
THING
REALITY
Mechanical engineering is a vast, complex field covering
everything from jet engines to pressure vessels. There are
numerous codes, fabrication methods and design issues asso-
ciated with each type of equipment used in plants. It is unre-
alistic to expect a plant engineer to understand these items in
enough detail to be successful without expert help from
company specialists, engineering standards and consultants.
However, we often assume plant maintenance engineers are
superhuman and are experts in everything from compressor
performance testing to heat exchanger design and construc-
tion. The results of these expectations are often disastrous.
CASE HISTORY
A junior maintenance engineer was assigned to a compressor
retrofit project since the plant machinery engineer was mov-
ing to a new position. Corporate resources were unavailable
to support the project. Although the individual was a top
performer, the expectation that he could perform his daily
duties plus a job that should have been assigned to an expert
machinery engineer was unrealistic. Due to the excessive
workload the engineer did not recognize a certain part was
exposed to the process and the incorrect material was select-
ed. After the error was discovered two critical compressors
had to be shut down for a temporary repair and the
machines had to be opened again at the next turnaround to
make permanent repairs. Substantial maintenance costs and
production losses occurred.
MYTH NUMBER 7:
RELIABILITY IS A PROJECT
REALITY
Many of us have often heard “The business is good, we need
to improve reliability...by next Tuesday. We have to lower
maintenance costs...by next month. Let’s have a reliability
project. We can assign Joe, he isn’t doing anything.” The
reality is that reliability is a very long-term commitment to
systems, records, procedures and personnel. It can not be
created overnight, or turned on and off like a switch.
RELIABILITY®Magazine June 2001 — 11
 There are, however, times when a project approach is
useful. After programs and projects have been identified,
good project management skills can make it happen. The
Project Manager can identify costs, schedule, manpower and
other items necessary for successful implementation of the
program or project.
CASE HISTORY
One European plant has had excellent reliability perfor-
mance for more than ten years and averaged over 99 percent
availability for the past 6 years. A number of factors have
made this possible. These include continuity of personnel,
methodic elimination of problems, a long-term view of
plant profitability and a reserve of maintenance funds for
refurbishment of insulation and painting. A classic example
of the plant philosophy is shown in Appendix 4. In the early
80’s the plant experienced over 80 leaks per year from exter-
nal corrosion. There were unscheduled shutdowns, environ-
mental problems and high maintenance costs. A
comprehensive program to address external stress corrosion
cracking and general corrosion under insulation was imple-
mented. Additional maintenance funds were dedicated to
this effort for several years. The problem was brought under
control, leaks were reduced from over 80/year to 2/year, and
costs were reduced.
MYTH NUMBER 6:
THE CRAFTSMAN IS ONLY INVOLVED IN
REPAIR, NOT IN RELIABILITY
REALITY
The reality is that no reliability program can be successful
without full cooperation of the craft personnel and their
supervision. These people are the critical man-machine
interface for predictive, preventive and breakdown mainte-
nance. Since these people are working on assembly and
repair of the equipment, they form a critical link in the root
cause analysis effort. In addition, many craft people will
work on the same equipment for a number of years and can
provide “corporate memory” that is often lost when turnover
of maintenance engineers occurs.
It is important for the organization to recognize and
reward craft personnel with special aptitude in the reliability
area. These people can be pulled into staff positions in the
reliability group to help set up programs, train personnel,
12 — RELIABILITY ®Magazine June 2001
perform shop QA functions and develop standard repair
plans. We have been successful with this concept. In addi-
tion to improving our reliability program, it has provided
financial and career growth opportunities for talented
hourly personnel.
CASE HISTORY
Severe wear problems occurred on a rail/wheel system in a
synthetic fuels plant. Although the design calculations pre-
dicted infinite life of the system, the rails were destroyed in
about 18 days of operation. Decommissioning of the sys-
tem, repair and realignment of the rails was taking nearly 40
days on an around the clock basis. Specialists from MIT,
British Rail and the American Rail Association were brought
in to work the problem. Cross sectional area of the rails was
increased and metallurgy was upgraded. However, the real
breakthrough came from the hourly mechanics that worked
on the machine each time it came down. The mechanics dis-
covered the loads were not evenly distributed between the 24
wheels on the machine. They also came up with a clever way
to measure the loads, determine the amount of imbalance
between wheels, and shim the device to balance the load.
Equipment life increased from 18 days to 2 years through
these modifications.
MYTH NUMBER 5:
MANAGEMENT WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT
THE PROGRAM
REALITY
During a recent 14-month period I had four bosses, went
through three restructuring programs and one takeover.
Each boss, structure and company had a different view on
the costs and benefits associated with reliability manage-
ment. These different views could have had a significant
impact on the program including manpower, priorities and
allocation of resources. It was important to have the facts
available on the financial benefits of the program and take
leadership with each of the new organizations to demon-
strate the effectiveness of the program.
The critical issue is that the reliability manager must
maintain documentation on the cost benefit ratio of the pro-
gram for a number of reasons. First, it is an important tool
for determining allocation of resources and which programs
are leveraging. It may indicate programs need modification,
additional resources or to be eliminat-
ed. In addition when organizational
changes take place, the manager must
be able to demonstrate the benefits of
the program to technical and business
personnel.
CASE HISTORY
During the early-80’s a well-known
chemical and refining company had
extensive standards, vendor assessment
practices, non-process engineering
expertise and manpower. This compa-
ny staffed up as a result of delays of up
to one year on plant startups due to
machinery problems. This compre-
hensive non-process engineering pro-
gram had become a standard way of
doing business and was considered a
“given” in the organization. When
crude oil prices dropped and pressure
increased on quarterly profits, the pro-
gram was devastated since the techni-
cal personnel we re unable to
adequately articulate the benefits of
the program. Numerous personnel
were laid off and much of the technol-
ogy was lost.
MYTH NUMBER 4:
YOU CAN TRUST EVERY-
THING ON AN ELECTRONIC
SCREEN
REALITY
We tend to believe everything that
comes to us in a fancy electronic pre-
sentation. This includes TV, the Inter-
net, distributed control system (DCS)
screens and electronic tools used in the
field. We used to have a saying, “If you
want management to believe you, use
color slides.”
The fact is engineers must under-
stand the accuracy and limitations of
the tools, instruments and data that
are used in making critical decisions.
Inaccuracy in measurement methods
can cause poor decisions to be made
on the condition of equipment and
extent of repair.
CASE HISTORY
In 1997 we recognized heat exchang-
ers were a major issue for plant reliabil-
ity. Thirty one percent of the outage at
three gulf coast facilities was caused by
heat exchanger failures. These failures
cost the company about $12MM in
production losses. An extensive study
was conducted of over 500 heat
exchanger repairs. Tools were devel-
oped to help assess the required turn-
a round repairs. In addition we
developed a tool called the Mock Heat
Exchanger. This was a small, portable
exchanger used to test non-destructive
examination (NDE) operators and
READER SERVICE NO. 52
methods. The exchanger was fabricat-
ed using typical tube sizes and materi-
als. Known defects were placed in the repair, not speedy return to service. A
tubes. When we began testing and thorough repair includes appropriate
qualifying operators we were shocked dimensional checks, replacement of
at the results. Even though the testing parts that are near the end of life and
was conducted in a clean room under appropriate procedures for returning
pristine conditions, certain methods the equipment to service.
showed extensive data scatter and inac- Many plants want the quickest
curacy. This program has driven us to repair instead of allowing maintenance
qualify all NDE operators, eliminate the proper amount of time to com-
certain test methods, remove more plete the job. This often leads to repeat
tubes to verify results and be more failures and short equipment life. This
conservative in retubing exchangers. is because the symptom is addressed
The results of NDE testing are shown instead of the root cause. For example,
in Appendix 5. plants often just replace failed pump
seals when the root cause may be bear-
MYTH NUMBER 3: ing problems, alignment or incorrect
THE KEY TO HIGH RELIA- tolerances. In addition, operations
BILITY IS SPEEDY REPAIR may demand the work be done after
REALITY normal working hours when resources
The key to high reliability is thorough are limited.
RELIABILITY®Magazine June 2001 — 13
CASE HISTORY
During two studies done in the 1980’s
speedy return to service instead of
thorough repair was identified as a
major factor in poor pump mean time
between failure. In order to correct this
problem, the plants changed their
repair philosophy. When a machine
came down, it became the property of
maintenance and standard repair pro-
cedures were implemented. If opera-
tions needed the equipment back
q u i c k l y, maintenance would work
overtime, call in resources and expe-
dite parts. However the repair proce-
d u re was not compro m i s e d .
Occasionally operations demanded
the equipment back immediately. In
this case operations had to sign a form
indicating the repair was compro-
mised and short life expected. These
forms were rarely executed and main-
tenance was generally given time to do
the repair. In addition, sound condi-
tion monitoring programs including
scheduled operation of spares gave
operations confidence that the spare
could carry the plant until a proper
repair could be executed.
MYTH NUMBER 2:
RELIABILITY PERFOR-
MANCE IS UP TO THE
RELIABILITY SUPERINTEN-
DENT
REALITY
Reliability is just like safety; everyone
must be involved to make the program
successful. In most plants people walk
through the gate focused on safety. In
plants with outstanding operating per-
formance, people feel the same about
reliability. Operations and mainte-
nance personnel have a key role in
plant reliability, but warehouse per-
14 — RELIABILITY ®Magazine June 2001
sonnel, engineers and even the clerical
personnel must also understand how
their actions can affect plant perfor-
mance.
CASE HISTORY
The company acquired a facility in the
mid-90’s that had been poorly main-
tained and was operated on a “run to
failure” philosophy. Maintenance costs
we re a staggering 8-10 percent of
replacement value; reliability was poor
and safety awareness was low. Morale
of the engineering staff was poor since
attempts to start reliability programs
or fix chronic problems were rejected.
After the acquisition, a program was
initiated to upgrade the facility. Root
cause analysis, engineering standards
and projects were implemented to
methodically eliminate the “bad actor”
equipment. Reliability performance
dramatically increased and morale
improved despite a reduction in force.
MYTH NUMBER 1:
IF IT WORKED ONCE, IT
WILL WORK IN ANY SER-
VICE
REALITY
The vendor must demonstrate the
proposed equipment has been operat-
ed in similar service for a reasonable
period of time and that reliability has
been acceptable. This is critical for a
successful installation. Se e m i n g l y
minor differences in fluid properties,
inlet conditions, speed, and pressure
can significantly affect performance.
Vendors will always tend to stretch the
envelope on equipment to get a sale.
The downside for the vendor is very
small compared to the impact on the
plant if the prototype does not func-
tion properly. Procedures to complete-
ly evaluate equipment to determine if
there is adequate experience are criti-
cal. You don’t want to be the Guinea
Pig!
CASE HISTORY
During startup of a synthetic fuels
plant, severe operational problems
were encountered with a delumper.
This device had normally been used to
shred materials such as sewage and
performed very well. In the synthetic
fuels plant the device was basically
used as an in-line rock crusher ahead of
a slurry pump. The unit would only
run for a few hours before it failed by
fatigue or wear. A crew was continu-
ously repairing the device and parts
were expensive and difficult to obtain.
Eventually the entire slurry system was
replaced at a cost of over $1MM. Large
suction lines and pumps that could
handle the full particle size range were
installed. In retrospect it was obvious
the delumper was unsuitable for the
task of crushing rock. Installation of
the proper slurry system during con-
struction of the plant would have pre-
vented extensive downtime and
maintenance repair costs.
SUMMARY
Reliability performance can be severe-
ly affected by preconceived notions or
assumptions by the plant staff. It is
important that the plant be aware of
the “myths” of reliability management
that can hurt performance. Reliability
is based on sound, long term pro-
grams, continuity of personnel, spend-
ing to maintain the plant in good
condition and most of all treating reli-
ability like safety. If this is done in your
facility, you will control the plant
instead of the plant controlling you.
Good luck in eliminating the myths in
your plant.
REFERENCES
1. Gamio, Carlos and Pinto, Walter; “Shell
and Tube Exchanger Reliability Study,”
NPRA Maintenance Conference, New
Orleans, Louisiana, May 1999.
2. Bloch, Heinz P., “A Detailed Examina-
tion of “Best-Of-Class” Reliability Prac-
tices in the Hyd rocarbon Pro c e s s i n g
Industry”, NPRA Maintenance Confer-
ence, New Orleans, Louisiana, Ma y
1999.
3. Loushin, L. Louis, “Assessment of Struc-
tural Integrity in Pressure Vessels, Predic-
tions and Verification”, ASME Pressure
Vessel Technology Conference, Ju n e
1996.
4. Hoffman, M. Rick, “Back to Basics, A
Down to Earth Approach to Sell, Imple-
READER SERVICE NO. 59
ment and Sustain Your Reliability Pro-
gram”, 8th International Process Plant
Reliability Conference, Houston, Texas,
October, 1999.
5. Hardy, Allison, Qualification Program
for Heat Exchanger Tube Test Operators,
NPRA Maintenance Confere n c e ,
Austin, Texas, May 2000.
Rick is currently Manager, Specialty
Engineering, for Lyo n d e l l / Eq u i s t a r
Petrochemical Company. A 28-year vet -
eran in the reliability field, he is respon -
sible for all corporate level maintenance
and reliability programs for the Lyondell
and Equistar sites. In addition, he has
world-wide responsibility for non-process
corporate engineering and capital project
technical support activities at over twen -
ty plants. During his career he has devel -
oped reliability programs for refineries,
chemical plants, and synthetic fuels oper -
ations. In the early 1980’s, Mr. Hoffman
headed up the technical support group
responsible for startup and operation of
the world’s first commercial oil shale ven -
ture. Rick has a BSME (honors) degree
from the University of Wyoming.
This article was presented at the 9th
Process Plant Reliability Conference and
Exhibition held October 25-26, 2000 in
Houston, Texas.
READER SERVICE NO. 63
RELIABILITY®Magazine June 2001 — 15