According to this well-known veteran of the reliability trenches, one of the best ways to hone the survival skills industry needs today and into the future is to pay attention to the basics. Taking time—making time—to read is a great way to start.

Many process plants assume that better maintenance strategies will lead to higher equipment reliability. Very often, the primary focus of these strategies is to avoid unnecessary oil changes or to optimize compressor overhauls and the pursuit of other preventive measures. Similarly, many of these strategies hope to help companies avoid equipment damage and costly production interruptions by doing appropriate maintenance "just-in-time."

While these are commendable goals, they do not address the constraints that are built into vast quantities of equipment that incorporate less-than-optimized components. Nor do such strategies remedy the numerous random failures that strain the maintenance budgets throughout industry today.

Staffed by harried employees, shops frequently become adept only at replacing parts in kind. Likewise, relatively few companies position themselves to systematically implement maintenance avoidance measures. We know that, in existing plants and with few exceptions, failure avoidance would be far more profitable than implementing optimized maintenance timing on non-optimized equipment. In new equipment procurement situations, utilizing specifications that eliminate the very components that risk causing frequent maintenance and downtime would provide far greater returns on the incremental investment than fine-tuning an asset management or related program.

Take, for example, the many operating plants today with literally hundreds of thousands of pumps that were purchased from the lowest bidders. It is wistful thinking to expect that all components in these lowest-cost machines represent best-available technology. In the age of downsizing, rightsizing and outsourcing, how realistic is it to assume that all of the various equipment manufacturers and vendors employ seasoned, well-versed, well-read subject matter experts?

Suppose a manufacturer recently sold less-than-optimum equipment. Knowing that we live in a litigious environment, would we really expect this manufacturer to concede that he/she continues to make, sell or market non-optimized equipment or components? If the answer is no, then it is clear that the user/purchaser has to be the driver for identifying and implementing equipment upgrades.

Trends that lead nowhere vs. trends for best-of-class performers
At the risk of inviting irate responses from benchmarking companies, we contend that the trend towards increased benchmarking will, ultimately, add little value to many enterprises. A recently published article mentioned four so-called perspectives, labeling them Operations, Reliability, Work Management and Safety & Environmental. Goals were specified for each and 60 different key performance indicators (KPIs) were listed as useful for managing risk and improving profitability.

At best, each one of those 60 benchmarks may give plants an indication of where they are in the game. Yet, not any of these listings specified even one of the many precise steps that really represent lasting improvement. What good is it to tell a facility it is re-working too many pumps, if nobody is able to explain the root cause reasons for this "excessive re-working" at that plant? While it's nice to point out the fact that "there must be a problem somewhere," far more value would be derived by adequately describing the root causes and solutions.

Today, truly best-of-class performers use asset management and streamlined maintenance strategies as "icing on the cake." They realize that these approaches add value only if the basics are in place and being practiced with consistency and forethought. As an example, best-of-class owner/purchasers are not likely to buy from the lowest bidder. They generally look at several competing offers and carefully examine which of them have "designed out" maintenance and failure risk. Best-of-class companies rarely, if ever, enter into lopsided alliances with suppliers. They will always use well-thought-out specifications that clearly describe and explain specific "upgraded" component materials, configurations, lubricant application methods, etc. Thus, the most important attribute of true best-in-class performers is their ability to provide authoritative answers to two questions:

1. Can a component be upgraded to resist failure?
2. If upgrading is feasible, is it also economically justified?

These are primary. . . these are the basics. Everything else is of lesser importance. Best-of-class performers know this to be a fact and are organized accordingly. Moreover, they are staffed so as to have a person—a designated and responsible individual—who can answer these...(Read whole article)