Читать книгу The RCM Solution - Nancy Regan - Страница 10
ОглавлениеA Facilitated Working Group Approach to RCM
When Thomas Edison was asked why he had a team of twenty-one assistants he said:
“If I could solve all the problems myself, I would.”
Overwhelming positive results are reaped when equipment experts are empowered to make decisions for physical assets.
It is very exciting to see the overwhelming positive results that are reaped when equipment experts—those who are intimate with the asset and the operating environment—are empowered to make decisions for physical assets. In fact, it is such a powerful concept that it is bewildering why organizations don’t employ teams more proactively when it comes to asset management.
Still, most organizations today use a single-analyst approach to RCM. That is, an RCM engineer, or in some cases an outside contractor, gathers technical manuals, drawings, etc., and completes the analysis independently. However, this limited perspective typically diminishes the quality and power of the results. In other cases, organizations claim the use of a working group approach by conducting interviews with equipment experts to fill the gaps in a single analyst’s analysis. These approaches, which sometimes can become counterproductive, pale in comparison to the remarkable solutions that can be formulated by a team.
2.1 The Team Approach to Accomplishing Objectives
Let’s take a look at the team approach because it is essential to the success of so many endeavors. Teams are all around us. For example, one player doesn’t win a World Series for a baseball team—nine members are essential to every inning played, and those nine are part of an even larger team. Anyone who has had surgery knows first-hand that there is never just a surgeon in an operating room. Many other professionals are required to ensure a successful procedure—the anesthesiologist, the circulator, the scrub tech, and the first assistant amongst them. How about flying? Is it just a pilot who delivers passengers safely to a destination? Of course not. Many individuals including the copilot, flight attendants, maintenance personnel, ground crew, and air traffic controllers are essential to the flight. In all of these examples, people working together reach a defined purpose.
When there is an aircraft crash in the United States, the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) immediately dispatches a “Go Team.” This team can consist of several people up to dozens of individuals representing a variety of disciplines including operations, structures, power plants, systems, weather, and air traffic control. Why are so many people involved in a crash investigation? Because it takes more than one expertise to identify the cause of an aircraft crash. Why then, when it comes to RCM—a process used to make vital decisions about assets—would an organization choose to employ a single analyst approach?
Teamwork and Preparation
I had the privilege of hearing Captain Al Haynes, pilot of United Airlines Flight 232, speak at the Aging Aircraft Conference in Missouri in May 2009. United Airlines Flight 232, a DC-10, crashed in Sioux City, Iowa, on July 19, 1989. On that flight, the #2 engine located on the tail of the aircraft suffered an internal engine failure due to an undetected manufacturing defect in the stage one fan rotor assembly. Shrapnel from the failure severed lines in all three, fully redundant hydraulic systems rendering them all completely inoperable. This almost completely crippled the aircraft. All that was left to control the aircraft was the use of the throttles on the #1 and #3 engines. The crew managed to get the aircraft on the ground. Tragically, of the 296 people on board, 112 died—but 184 people lived. Captain Haynes said it was a team of people who allowed so many to live: the airport authorities who readied the airport and runway to accept them, the cabin crew who prepared the passengers for an emergency landing, the air traffic controllers who calmly controlled the aircraft to the runway, the cockpit crew who so expertly managed to get the aircraft on the ground, and emergency personnel who tended to injured passengers. Teamwork!
Another reason, Captain Haynes said that so many people lived was preparation. They were prepared to handle an emergency. He closed his presentation by urging the audience to consider the things that will probably never happen and to prepare for them. His words were, “Be as prepared as you possibly can.”
“Be as prepared as you possibly can.”
Captain Al Haynes
“Be as prepared as you possibly can.” These are powerful words when it comes to asset management—especially when considering the types of assets custodians are responsible for and the communities they serve. Organizations need to be prepared to meet mission requirements, production commitments, scheduling constraints, safety goals, environmental regulations, cutbacks of all kinds, quality goals, and cost commitments. Therefore, assets must perform as required.
If an organization seeks to be as prepared as it possibly can, who is in the best position to identify and accomplish what that takes? Is it an outside contractor? The equipment manufacturer? The systems engineer? The operator? The maintainer? What one person knows it all? In most cases, there isn’t just one person, especially when considering all of the elements that influence a system.
2.2 Elements that Influence a System
As discussed in Chapter 1 and shown in Figure 1.1, there are many elements that influence a system including: proactive maintenance, operating procedures, technical publications, training programs, equipment design, supply issues, operational tempo and environment, and emergency procedures. The range of issues that directly affect how equipment operates makes it almost impossible for one person to know everything about an asset and what is required for it to meet requirements.
Responsible custodianship means identifying and developing comprehensive failure management strategies.
It doesn’t matter what is analyzed—an airplane, nuclear power plant, truck, tank, ship, offshore oil platform, mobile air conditioning unit, tow tractor, jet engine or a single pump. Whatever the asset is, responsible custodianship means identifying and developing comprehensive failure management strategies.
2.3 Failure Management Strategies
When formulating failure management strategies to maintain assets, organizations typically focus on the development of a proactive maintenance program. However, there are many other failure management strategies that are almost always required to ensure an asset meets requirements. Examples of these are shown in Figure 1.4; they include new operating procedures, updates to technical publications, modifications to training programs, equipment redesigns, supply process changes, enhanced troubleshooting procedures, and updated emergency procedures. Where, then, can the information required be obtained to formulate these solutions?
2.4 Historical Data and the RCM Process
One place to turn is historical data. Historical data is important and can be incredibly useful. But without exception, the kind of data that is generally collected isn’t sufficient to answer all the questions in the RCM process—and, thereby, formulate specific solutions. In many cases, the kind of data collected for assets can be likened to baseball statistics. Figure 2.1 presents a season’s batting statistics for batter Smith.
Figure 2.1 One season’s batting statistics for player Smith
Player Smith’s batting average is .204, which means the batter gets a hit approximately twice out of every ten at-bats. He has 21 runs batted in (RBI) and six home runs. By reviewing the data, the batting coach can conclude that batter Smith needs improvement. This is valuable information because now the batting coach knows where resources need to be designated—helping to improve batter Smith’s performance. However, what the batting coach cannot deduce from reviewing the data is what is causing batter Smith to perform poorly so the coach cannot formulate specific solutions to help the batter improve. For example, should the batter start to swing a little earlier? Or maybe a little later? Or maybe the batter needs to change his stance. The solutions cannot be determined just by evaluating the data.
Historical data for assets is often of the same ilk. For example, a review of bearing data can reveal that 50 bearings were replaced last year—up from 20 last year. From this review, the equipment custodian can conclude that there is a problem regarding the bearing. However, what specifically caused the 50 bearing failures cannot be identified simply from reviewing the data. For example, were the bearings greased improperly? Were they not greased at all? Was the wrong grease used? Was there a manufacturing defect? Were the bearings fitted improperly? There are many issues that could specifically cause the bearing failures. So while the data is valuable because it allows an equipment custodian to zero in on problem areas and, thereby, allocate resources where they can be of most benefit, the data doesn’t reveal exactly what is causing the bearing problem.
The Use of Historical Data in an RCM Analysis
When historical data is available, it should be employed in the RCM process. For example, historical data is typically very useful for determining items with high failure rates and high maintenance man-hour consumers. The data allows an organization to focus in on problem areas and assists in prioritizing the systems that will be subject to RCM analysis. In this way, resources are allocated where they would be most beneficial.
Where Historical Data Often Falls Short
Historical data can be incomplete because it typically:
•Reports only what failed
•Describes what was done to repair the failure rather than what caused it
•Doesn’t describe failures that are currently being prevented or plausible failures that haven’t occurred
•Describes failures which may be the effect of some other failure
•Offers inadequate information for determining On-Condition, Restoration, and Replacement task intervals
The use of historical data in an RCM analysis plays a very important role in the application of RCM, but the data is often incomplete and requires further explanation. So, if historical data is often incomplete to perform an RCM analysis, where can an organization turn to get the information?
None of us is as smart as all of us. Ken Blanchard
Organizations can capture an enormous amount of information by asking the right people; this tool is one of the most valuable tools in any RCM analysis. When a working group is assembled, there are typically over 100 years of cumulative experience at an organization’s disposal. Because of the vast and varied experience and perspectives represented, the group shares a unique opportunity to formulate solutions that can make a remarkable difference to the organization. By turning to people who know where the improvement opportunities are, skilled facilitators can use RCM principles to consolidate their knowledge and lead experts in formulating solutions that can have a powerful impact on the organization.
When a working group is assembled, there are typically over 100 years of cumulative experience at an organization’s disposal.
The best working group members have significant experience and understand the equipment, operating environment, operational tempo, and equipment requirements.
In order for a working group to be effective, the most knowledgeable and experienced individuals are required. The best working group members have significant experience and understand the equipment, operating environment, operational tempo, and equipment requirements. Suppose an individual is requested to participate in an analysis and management reports it can’t afford to have that individual away for a week or two; that is confirmation that the right person has been identified. In fact, the organization can’t afford not to have the expert in the analysis.
2.6 Benefits of a Facilitated Working Group Approach
More Safe, Cost-Effective, and Technically Defensible Proactive Maintenance
The questions that RCM poses require specific and detailed answers. For example, when trying to determine an On-Condition task to monitor a V-belt for wear, a facilitator may ask a team the following question: How much time will it take from the point that visual evidence of wear on the V-belt is detectable to the time that the belt breaks? This span of time is known as the P-F interval and is discussed at length in Chapter 9. The answers to questions like this one are rarely found in historical data because this type of data usually isn’t captured and tracked. However, equipment experts–people who work with the equipment every day–are poised to answer the RCM questions most of the time. In this case, a machine operator can usually identify, for example, that it would take six months for the belt to break once cracks and frays are detectable. This is a straightforward example, but many RCM issues can be very complex, which makes it ever more important that experts are allowed to answer the questions. This ensures that the most safe, cost effective, and technically defensible proactive maintenance plan is formulated—that is, the right maintenance is done at the right time.
Results Go Far Beyond Equipment Maintenance
Because they work with the equipment on a day-to-day basis and understand the intricacies of the equipment and the operating environment, working group members understand the vulnerabilities of equipment and the associated processes that lead to equipment failure. This understanding allows them to know where the improvement opportunities are. When asked the right questions, working group members can formulate failure management strategies that go far beyond proactive maintenance (such as changes to operating procedures and updates to technical publications), allowing issues other than proactive maintenance to be addressed.
Working Group Members Learn from Each Other
As stated before, it is almost impossible for one person to know everything there is to know about an asset. Because the cumulative knowledge of a working group is so vast and varied, team members learn from each other during an analysis. Their familiarity, awareness, and understanding of the equipment and the organization grow, allowing their contribution to the organization to become even more valuable. Very often during an RCM analysis, the facilitator gets feedback from a working group member such as “wow, I’ve been working on this equipment for 20 years and I didn’t know that.” Even the most seasoned expert learns.
RCM Identifies What an Organization Doesn’t Know
Working group members often use experience and judgment to provide answers, but they don’t take guesses.
Because the RCM process requires answers to detailed questions, one of its greatest strengths is that it naturally identifies what an organization doesn’t know. Gaps in information are documented so that the information can be obtained. Working group members often use experience and judgment to provide answers, but they don’t take guesses. Facilitators are trained to recognize when a working group doesn’t know and appropriate action is taken as a result. For example, an age exploration program may be recommended as a result of RCM analysis or an action item may be issued to obtain further information.
Because the right people were asked the right questions, some of the most successful RCM analyses uncover the issues that have been causing chronic unreliability.
During an analysis, issues requiring additional information are parked until the answers can be found. Just as in life, it is dangerous when you don’t know what you don’t know. But there is great strength in identifying what you don’t know—information can then be obtained while issues are dealt with appropriately in the meantime. Because the right people were asked the right questions, some of the most successful RCM analyses uncover the issues that have been causing chronic unreliability.
Tribal Knowledge is Preserved
In most cases, the knowledge and experience that experts gain over the years isn’t formally recorded. So when seasoned experts retire or choose to leave an organization, often the intricacies of their know-how leave with them. Harnessing this information can be incredibly valuable to an organization. The RCM process formally extracts and documents this knowledge so that future generations of equipment experts, and thereby the organization, can benefit from it.
Reduces Human Error
Human error is a widespread problem across the world. History is riddled with fatal disasters caused by it. Equipment is often so complex that there will always be vulnerabilities present that can lead to disasters if not identified and eliminated. On the surface, it may appear that a technician is at fault, but a more detailed inspection may reveal the real cause. For example, if a component is installed backwards, the typical reaction is to blame the technician who installed it. But the backwards installation may actually be an effect of a deeper problem: the maintenance manual wrongly depicts the position of the component. In this case, the technician did the job right. The problem is that the technician was tasked with the wrong job.
Consider the following disasters caused by “human error”.
NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter Lost on September 23, 1999
The $125 million Mars orbiter was to be a key part in exploring the planet. Two engineering teams working on the project were using different units of measure—English and metric units. As a result, on September 23, 1999, the spacecraft entered a much lower orbit than was intended and the spacecraft was lost. Edward Weiler, NASA’s Associate Administrator for Space Science, said in his written statement, “The problem here was not the error. It was the failure of NASA’s systems engineering, and the checks and balance in our processes to detect the error.”
Helios Airways, Flight 522
Helios Airways, Flight 522 was a Boeing 737-300 that crashed in a hilly area 25 miles north of Athens on August 14, 2005. The aircraft underwent maintenance the night before the accident. The ground crew left a cabin pressurization setting on “manual” mode instead of “auto” mode. As a result, the cabin would not pressurize after takeoff. The crew ignored the cabin altitude warning horn, the passenger oxygen mask deployment indicator, and the master caution switch, and the aircraft continued to climb. The crew then suffered from hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation. The aircraft crashed when it ran out of fuel. All 121 people on board died.
