Reliability Center, Inc.

You are warmly invited to join us for an EasyRCA Demo & Webinar designed specifically for our friends in the Food Production Industry. Tuesday, February 25th at 12:00 Noon EST (UTC-5) ? Real World Examples ? Designed for Reliability, HSE, Quality, Maintenance Engineers & Managers ? Subject Matter Expert Facilitation ? Demonstration of EasyRCA ? Question & Response

The following article was published in Plant Services with the title, “Don’t get stuck in reactive mode—the world of fantasy maintenance is calling you."? The alias of the author is Captain Unreliability, so all credit should go to the Captain. To the veterans in the field, you will connect with this article in a heartbeat. You will be laughing all along the way. In the end, there’s a commentary about how this may appear comical, but sadly, it is reality in many places where we all work (or have worked). But we’ll leave that up to you, to be the judge. Read the article here: https://lnkd.in/gM7E5cHw

This case study examines a nylon plant in Virginia that struggled to reach its design capacity of 334 million pounds annually, achieving a maximum of only 319 million. The plant faced deteriorating machinery, over 15% downtime, and rising injury rates, leading to increased management involvement in repairs and heightened employee stress. A reliability assessment revealed that root cause analyses lacked depth and failed to address systemic issues. Preventive and predictive maintenance were poorly executed and frequently rescheduled, resulting in unexpected equipment failures. Overwhelmed by reactive work, maintenance staff couldn’t focus on crucial predictive readings. Additionally, disorganized spare parts inventory led to hoarding without proper tracking, and decision-making was not occurring at the appropriate levels, needing restoration to those with the most field knowledge. Read the full article here:?? https://lnkd.in/gReUZ5Rq

An undesirable event (a fancy term for unexpected failure) occurs, and a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is triggered. This usually indicates a severe event as triggers are often set pretty high (i.e., reportable injury/fatality, equipment damage in excess of >$$k, production losses in excess of > $$k, regulatory violation, etc.). Since there is urgency and visibility, how do I decide who will lead the investigation/RCA? Our natural tendency is to identify the technical ‘expert’ in the nature of whatever the undesirable event was. But does that typically produce the most effective outcome for the organization and its employees? This article will focus on which skills are needed most under such conditions and why. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gsu5YCpK?

We might be doing a Shallow Cause Analysis (SCA) if … 1. We blame and discipline the violator and that concludes the investigation. There is no attempt to try and understand the intent of the decision. 2. ‘Compliance’ is our only definition of success (not a direct correlation to a measurable improvement in reliability, safety, or some other meaningful bottom-line metric). 3. We don’t have time to do RCA right, so we just do it quickly. 4. ‘Hearsay’ is a valid form of evidence in our analysis. 5. Our team leader has something to lose or gain by the outcome of the analysis. 6. Our analysis is linear and concludes there is only one (1) root cause. 7. We keep picking from a drop down list of potential cause choices until we have reached a predetermined conclusion that is acceptable to reviewers. 8. We are a one (1) person team. 9. We are only using a ‘one-size-fits-all’ RCA form to complete our analysis because we feel it has a better chance of being accepted due to the format. 10. We cannot quantitatively measure the effectiveness of our analysis using lagging and/or leading indicators (e.g., quality of RCA process, use of evidence, bottom line impacts, etc.). 11. We find ourselves doing an ‘RCA’ on the same issue over and over again (e.g., definition of insanity?) Do you know if Shallow Cause Analyses are being conducted at your organization? Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/griTcWNf

We often hear our organizations referring to their workforce as their greatest ‘asset’. But are they really? Let’s first define ‘asset’ from a financial perspective: In financial accounting, an asset is an economic resource. Anything tangible or intangible that can be owned or controlled to produce value and that is held by a company to produce positive economic value is an asset. Simply stated, assets represent value of ownership that can be converted into cash (although cash itself is also considered an asset). Now let’s do the same for ‘liability’... Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/gwBJasSv?

We purposely designed our latest RCA software solution to be 1) so easy to use, it would require no training, 2) just as easy as using Post-Its, 3) accommodating of most any RCA methodology (supports 5-whys and Fishbone Analyses as well) available, and 4) visually digestible; anybody could read the ‘story’ the analysis was telling them by simply looking at it! Read the full article here:? https://lnkd.in/gSuK7-hp?

In the world of business, the key to sustainable growth and success lies in identifying the root causes of failures and problems. However, not all Root Cause Analysis (RCA) methods are created equal. Today, we will explore the power of PROACT, a proven and robust approach that drives incredible results for numerous companies. Unlike superficial analyses, PROACT? RCA delves deep into the intricacies of different analytical methodologies used in the field. Traditional techniques like troubleshooting and brainstorming may be quick to implement but often fall short in providing comprehensive and reliable root cause identification. On the other hand, structured approaches like the 5-whys and fishbone diagrams offer more discipline but can be misapplied due to time constraints. To illustrate the real-world impact of the PROACT? approach, we will share compelling case studies from various industries, highlighting significant financial returns achieved through the implementation of PROACT? RCA. These examples will underscore the transformative potential of a well-executed RCA process and inspire companies seeking to improve their performance and reliability. Read the full article here:? https://lnkd.in/gvr3kBkf?

Traditionally, RCA is only utilized after an event has occurred, so how can one call it proactive? This perception is explored through trying to understand the current paradigms that exist about RCA, what it is, and when it is used. Do we really have to wait for an undesirable outcome to occur in order to use RCA? Read the full article here:? https://lnkd.in/gQhfsNpS?

Is the only type of error a ‘human error’? I struggled to think of an ‘error’ that is not a human error, so we asked if others could think of something else. We thank Dr. Peter Elias, who commented that errors can occur in biologic processes, such as RNA and DNA replication or messaging. He also cited non-human animals making errors all the time as well. For our purposes on this blog, we will focus on human error as being the most prevalent in our working environments. Step 1, we should define it so we all use the term consistently and appropriately. This helps us define the scope of the term. For this discussion, I will use Todd Conklin’s concise, and to the point, definition from Pre-Accident Investigations (Conklin, 2014, p.8), “An unexpected deviation from an expected outcome.” Let’s run with that definition for now. From this, I will take the liberty of defining a ‘failure’ as an ‘unexpected outcome’. So unexpected deviations are eventually linked to human errors, which are simply errors of omission or commission in human decision-making. By our decisions, we create the propagation of future, observable pathways to either success or failure. Appropriate decisions trigger pathways to success and inappropriate decisions result in failures. Pretty simple in concept so far, right? Read the rest of the article here: https://lnkd.in/g8wQd_Ct?