Eliminating defects through equipment reliability

Carl March, Life Cycle Engineering

Tags: lean manufacturing
Since the rise to prominence of quality-focused business initiatives
such as Total uality Management !TM" and eventually Si# Sigma,
companies have been focusing on reducing their $nal product defects
to the absolute bare minimum% The &idely accepted de$nition of a Si#
Sigma process is one that produces '%( defective parts per million
opportunities !)*M+"% The single most critical item to this overall
quality goal is variation% Many quality professionals readily
ac,no&ledge that variations in processes and in equipment
performance lead to a vast number of defects e#perienced by the end
customer% -n Si# Sigma, a defect is de$ned as anything that could lead
to customer dissatisfaction% .or the purposes of this article, the
author/s focus &ill be on the correlation bet&een equipment reliability
and such product defects% This article &ill also e#plore some of the
common root causes of poor equipment reliability and &hat can be
done to prevent or mitigate them, hence leading to the elimination of
defects%
Equipment Reliability and Product Defects
0uthor 1on Moore suggests that process conformance can be improved
through equipment reliability, proper, calibrated instrumentation,
disciplined operation and quality ra& material2% Equipment reliability
assures that subsystems and components function as intended &ithout
failure for desired periods during their design life% Theoretically, defects
can be introduced into equipment at each of the si# main phases of its
life cycle: )esign, *urchase, Store, -nstallation3Commissioning,
+peration and Maintenance% -t, therefore, stands to reason that if you
manage the defects leading to equipment failure, then you &ill be able
to directly a4ect product quality%
Common Root Causes of Poor Equipment Reliability
1oot causes are the underlying factors that are found to be responsible
for a particular event or class of events occurring, such as poor
equipment performance% The goal of eliminating these root causes is to
prevent future recurrence of said event!s"% +ften, these are mista,en
&ith the human interventions that lead to failure, symptoms of failure
or the physical mechanisms by &hich failure manifests itself% 1ather, in
order to truly prevent future unreliability, you must go to the true
source of failures ,no&n as latent causes% These are systemic by
nature, and &hile they yield the highest re&ard by being prevented or
managed, they are most at ris, for non-implementation% This is due to
the fact that they are by and large deep-seated in the organi5ation and
pointing to&ard the management system that has been ingrained in
the company culture% Some of the more common latent roots22 that
one can cite for premature equipment failure are:
Misapplication 6 This can be due to equipment operations outside
of the design envelope, poor initial design practices or poor
procurement practices%
+perating practices 6 This can be due to inadequate operating
procedures, lac, of adherence to procedures or inadequate
system for follo& up%
Maintenance practices 6 This is due to inadequate maintenance
procedures, no adherence to procedures or inadequate frequency
of maintenance tas,s%
0ge 6 This is due to accelerated &ear mechanisms by
environmental factors or the end of the useful life by normal
&ear and tear%
Management systems 6 This is due to lac, of s,ills or operator
training, poor employee involvement, poor recognition of ha5ard,
and3or previously identi$ed ha5ards &ere not follo&ed up on and
eliminated%
0ny organi5ation trying to reap the full bene$ts of reduced defects by
improving equipment reliability should have at least the follo&ing four
systems in place%
RCA Program
1oot cause analysis !1C0" is a process &hich systematically uses any
one or combination of a class of problem-solving methods aimed at
identifying the root causes of problems or events% The ste&ardship of
this process is usually a function of reliability engineering% 0s intimated
earlier, having a disciplined 1C0 program in place is essential, $rst of
all, to identify the reasons behind poor equipment reliability and,
secondly, to implement actions &hich &ill prevent them from
happening again%
Company 0, a large chemical manufacturer, had more than 7,789
centrifugal pumps in service% The mean time bet&een failure !MT:."
for the pumps in 7;;8 &as measured to be appro#imately 9%< years
!;%= months"% Systematic 1C0 as a business process did not start at the
facility until 7;;<% *rior to that, they performed failure analysis and did
a gap analysis bet&een their installation and maintenance practices
and >best in class%? That &as the @umpstart that they needed% 0 formal
1C0 process came later% The decision &as made by the reliability
department to have their crafts3trades trained in a technique by &hich
failure codes &ould be assigned for each failure% This data &as
subsequently recorded in their computeri5ed maintenance
management system !CMMS" and a separate .ailure 1eporting 0nalysis
and Corrective 0ctions System !.10C0S" database% 1C0 &as conducted
on &hat &ere determined to be the more predominant modes of failure
!as indicated by the failure codes"% 0ctions &ere then ta,en based on
the $ndings and the results sho&n in .igure 7 &ere achieved%
Figure 1: Pump MTF for !ears 1""# to $%%$
+ver the course of eight years, the MT:. for these pumps increased by
a phenomenal 899 percent% Aust the reduction in pump failures
accounted for appro#imately B8%8 million per year reduction in direct
maintenance cost by the end of the data set% There &ere many other
reliability initiatives besides pumps going on during that last $ve years
of the data period, but pumps &ere $rst and the largest% The combined
impact of all the reliability initiatives !of &hich pumps &ere estimated
to be accountable for '8 to (9 percent" &as an uprating of the plant by
78 percent for essentially minor capital e#penditures and an increase
in overall equipment e4ectiveness !+EE" of appro#imately ( percent
!from ;( percent to ;<%C percent"% The plant &as able to debottlenec,
and operate at the higher demonstrated rate because of the increased
process stability% More than three pump failures per day, even &here
there &ere spares, is a lot of instability% Thro& in a fe& instrument
failures per day and at least one vessel failure per &ee,, and one never
,ne& &hat the real limits of a plant &ere because one could never Dline
out? and run% The impact of the reduced cost and increased sales from
all of the improvements made plant pro$tability go from B7C million
per year in a sold out mar,et to B(' million per year at only =9 percent
of capacity to BEC million per year &hen it &as sold out the ne#t year%
&nsite Reliability Practitioners
Life Cycle Engineering is the pioneer of 1eliability E#cellence !1#",
&hich is de$ned as >a business philosophy, driven through cultural
change that focuses on equipment reliability and process control as the
foundation of modern manufacturing operations%? -n the company/s
e#perience, it has been determined that e#cellence is accomplished by
the completion of $ve discrete levels referred to as the e#cellence
model sho&n in .igure C% The sustainability step atop the model
includes reliability engineering as one of its ,ey components% Fhether
you have a reliability engineer onsite or not, there are some ,ey
activities &ithin that role that need to ta,e place in order assure that
the desired results are sustained 6 the desired results in this case being
increased equipment reliability leading to lo&er defects%
Figure $: Reliability E'cellence Model
Gour onsite reliability practitioners are tas,ed to monitor equipment
and processes in order to identify opportunities for continuous
improvement% 0s ris, managers for your business, they should
proactively determine the best &ay to handle ris, through the use of
the appropriate preventive3predictive maintenance techniques and ris,
plans% 1eliability-Centered Maintenance or some variation thereof is
recommended for at least the most critical equipment that you have
onsite% .or the balance of the plant, various other optimi5ation
strategies allo&ing the best bang for the buc, can be utili5ed% -t is
advised, ho&ever, that one be cogni5ant of the limitations of such
strategies in order to ,no&ingly accept any ris,s associated &ith their
use%
usiness Processes (upporting Reliability and Product )uality
The foundation of any reliability and quality initiative has to be stable
processes% -t must be fundamentally clear that no Total *roductive
Maintenance !T*M", lean manufacturing or Si# Sigma initiative &ill
reach its full potential &ithout the processes to sustain improvement%
Ta,e, for e#ample, the case of a 89-year-old aluminum smelter, &hich
undertoo, the mammoth tas, of re-engineering their &or, and
equipment processes% -n C99C, @ust prior to their focused 1eliability
E#cellence e4ort, the plant had total maintenance costs in e#cess of
B'8 million% -t also had a ratio of more than B7'E in maintenance costs
for every metric ton of aluminum produced !89 percent higher than the
global average at the time"% The company embar,ed on standardi5ing
&or, processes, developing equipment history and utili5ing lean
manufacturing tools for problem solving% Maintenance in partnership
&ith operations, decided to use the T*M metric +EE to measure their
progress% *ea, performances for speci$c plant functions &ere
determined, including scrap rate% -n C99(, after implementing ne&
reliability-based processes, BC%( million in improvements &ere
attributed directly to such +EE gains%
ResultsMonitoring
The old adage attributed to quality professional Aoseph Auran states, >-f
you don/t measure it, you don/t manage it%? That still rings true today%
To ensure that you are on the right trac, and achieving the desired
results of no defects, you must have the appropriate metrics in place%
The $rst obvious metric to consider is +EE% This measure indicates ho&
e4ectively the organi5ation/s assets are being utili5ed to achieve
business goals% -t integrates three other measures: equipment
availability, performance rate and product quality% The fascinating thing
about the use of +EE as a metric is that from this discussion, it has
been established that by improving equipment reliability, the
availability measure and the quality measure may also improve% There
&ill then be a dual e4ect on +EE due to improved reliability% 0nother
metric that &ould be useful to trac, is the MT:. and scrap rate on
speci$c pieces of equipment that have been targeted for improvement%
-n so doing, the direct correlation bet&een the t&o measures can be
e#amined and further analy5ed%
Conclusion
.requently, reliability professionals articulate the connection bet&een
equipment reliability and the bottom-line results that matter to most
organi5ations% +ne &ill very quic,ly tout the connection &ith
production output and safety, but quality or process &aste is
sometimes left behind% 0s suggested in this article, there is a clear lin,
bet&een equipment reliability and the defects or &aste created in the
manufacturing process% -n order to manage the variation in your
manufacturing process, you need to manage the variation in the
performance of your equipment by ta,ing four ,ey steps to&ard
consistency in your product% .irst, you need a robust, disciplined 1C0
and reliability program in place in order to identify the sources of poor
equipment reliability% Second, you also need to have reliability
personnel dedicated to the tas,s of sustaining your reliability
improvements% Third, you need to understand your business processes
and ensure that they support your direction% Lastly, you need to
measure your progress &ith the appropriate metrics%
References
2 Moore, 1% Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Tools,
:oston, Ma, H London, Elsevier :utter&orth-Ieinemann :oo,s, C99E%
22 Mobley, 1% J% Root Cause Failure Analysis, Elsevier :utter&orth-
Ieinemann, 7;;;%
About the author:
Carl March has a &ealth of e#perience in the areas of maintenance,
reliability engineering, systems modeling and design% Carl holds an
undergraduate degree in mechanical engineering and a graduate
degree in automotive systems engineering% 0s a reliability sub@ect
matter e#pert at Life Cycle Engineering, his passion and focus is in the
transfer of ,no&ledge in 1CM, T*M, root cause analysis and reliability
e#cellence to clients &orld&ide see,ing to achieve manufacturing
distinction% Carl has attained a signi$cant level of professional
recognition as a Certi$ed 1eliability Engineer !C1E" by the 0merican
Society for uality and as a Certi$ed Maintenance and 1eliability
*rofessional !CM1*" by the Society of Maintenance and 1eliability
*rofessionals% Gou can reach Carl at cmarchKLCE%com% .or more
information on LCE, visit &&&%LCE%com or call <('-E((-E779%