Maintenance and Reliability for Rotating Equipment - Closing the Loop

Maintenance of rotating equipment is a vast subject that could fill volumes. Maintenance and reliability are intertwined, each essential for the success of the other. It’s crucial to recognize that these are distinct functions that mutually support one another.

The synergy between maintenance and reliability is pivotal for achieving favorable outcomes. In my visits to various sites, I’ve noticed that many have small reliability departments comprising only 1-5 employees, and they often face challenges. There is both a blue-collar and a white-collar aspect to Reliability. Mature organizations have both, whereas emerging organizations may have only one or neither. Reliability holds a unique position in the maintenance realm as technicians collecting and analyzing data, second as engineers, collaborating with Maintenance, Operations, and Capital Projects teams, and individuals who trying to achieve over 95% equipment availability. Recently, I visited a client in North America with an exceptional reliability department, boasting 30 personnel. They possess a comprehensive setup:

·???? A functioning Bad Actors Committee

·???? Operator Rounds Analysts

·???? Asset Coordinators

·???? Vibration Analysis Team

·???? Rotating Equipment Engineers

·???? Electrical and Instrument Engineers

·???? Mechanical Shop Coordinators

·???? A plethora of key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor

It’s a dream come true! Despite this robust setup and acknowledgment of the department’s importance, they still grapple with similar challenges seen elsewhere — specifically, issues with closing the loops.

Typically, all the necessary components are in place: correct processes, forms, and an understanding within the maintenance of what needs to be done. However, in this case:

·???? 19% of work orders (WOs) lack failure codes.

·???? 21% of all WOs have incorrect failure codes.

·???? On top of that about 20% of asset tags were incorrect.

This complicates equipment analysis significantly. Achieving an ideal split between preventive maintenance orders (60%) and corrective (40%) requires a deep understanding of this data. Additionally, we must assess the effectiveness of PM.

While technicians leave notes after each PM, these are seldom scrutinized or analyzed, leading to PMs being performed too frequently or not often enough. Moreover, changes in PM methodology are rarely considered unless prompted by a bad actor. Across the industry, I have noticed a lack or poor quality of some important definitions like what consists of bad actors?

To address these issues effectively, we propose the following steps:

1. Establish an ongoing, routine process for reviewing all aspects of PMs, including frequency, accuracy, and necessity.
2. Analyze results and adjust predictive maintenance (PdM) routes based on equipment performance history and findings.
3. Enhance opportunities for reliability engineers to prioritize reliability work orders with maintenance teams.
4. Increase PM program visibility by generating monthly reports on PM findings and recommended actions by area.
5. Encourage feedback on forms by recognizing and sharing findings and engaging workers in teams to tackle major obstacles.
6. Evaluate the operations-driven reliability program for potential enhancements or adjustments.
7. Expand the use of remote monitoring for critical equipment checks.
8. Designing a program to ensure everyone on-site understands their responsibilities and behaviors necessary to contribute to the refinery’s reliability, just as they do with safety, is paramount.

Operations

The relationship and trust between Operations (OPS) and maintenance/reliability often experience strain. Consequently, cooperation between these departments frequently suffers from poor communication and collaboration. There are often doubts about whether unit operators can genuinely contribute to maintenance and reliability efforts. However, OPS has the potential to contribute significantly, making it imperative to strive for alignment.

At a BP plant in California, OPS successfully managed a model lube oil program. Similarly, at TNK-BP in Russia, operators excelled in identifying potential problems, participating in planned preventive maintenance (PM), and effectively communicating issues to maintenance, demonstrating an almost perfect process. Conversely, in other instances, OPS has been relegated to the traditional role of merely writing tickets.

Key Performance Indicators

Often, key performance indicators (KPIs) are not actively managed or understood, leading to a lack of clarity on how they are calculated or what data they are based on. Additionally, the dollar impact of reliability improvements for rotating equipment and electrical and instrumentation (E&I) is frequently unknown or not adequately tracked, undermining confidence in the data.

Therefore, investing time in developing cascading KPIs that provide reliable data is essential. Here are some suggested steps:

1. Revisit the existing reliability KPIs to ensure they effectively measure efforts to drive reliability and yield results.
2. Assign ownership of KPIs to the appropriate positions and levels within the organization. Hold these owners accountable for analyzing performance gaps and developing actions to achieve targets.
3. Establish performance targets for each KPI and define behavioral expectations for their owners to ensure they meet these targets. Follow the SMART goals framework to ensure objectives are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.
4. In addition to setting targets, establish baselines for each KPI where possible and track them over time. Enhance the visibility of results and actions taken to address performance gaps both internally and externally. Consider implementing performance boards or other means of publicly displaying results to supplement email communications regarding KPI sharing.

By implementing these strategies, we can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of maintenance and reliability practices, ultimately improving overall equipment performance and uptime.

?

Cezary Goch

Global Implementation Lead Project Control and TA SME

RLG International