I must admit it is a bit frustrating to believe very strongly in a concept that others may not consider especially important. After numerous discussions and presentations over the past couple years, I've decided to try a sports metaphor to better explain the opportunity, challenge, and threat.

Ever consider how sports might change and how differently they would be played if no one cared about the score? Think about football. Fourth and goal with 40 seconds to play. There will be major differences in the play call if the team with the ball is behind by 2, behind by 3, behind by 4, or ahead by 20. Consider set and match points in tennis The point is played very differently if the score is 40-love or love-40. Almost any sport you can think of is the same. Watch the last minutes of a close professional basketball game and try to convince anyone that score doesn't matter.

You may be thinking all this is very interesting but how does it apply to maintenance? I believe the answer is simple. Maintenance is scored in financial terms by those who count--the people who sign your checks. Maintenance costs as a percentage of replacement asset value is one widely used measure--there are others. Whether you agree or not, are comfortable or not, the fact is that we and our effectiveness are scored by money--how much was spent last year, how much will be spent this year, and if B is greater than A, your job may be in jeopardy.

Most equipment practitioners aren't allowed to spend money without a guaranteed return of at least 30 to 40 percent. And this is why the so-called streamlined reliability centered maintenance (RCM) has become popular. RCM without initial prioritization can be hugely expensive. There are many stories of an expensive RCM that resulted in added maintenance to avoid unlikely failures on nonvital equipment with a long history of reliability operation and low cost of failure. Keith Mobley recently wrote of a survey where nearly 51 percent of respondents reported their predictive maintenance programs did not return costs.

What's wrong in these pictures? The answer is that many people measure success in technical terms such as preventive maintenance completed, regardless of whether value is added and flawed bearings are identified and replaced. When dollars are the only score with any importance to executives, measures like these are like having the best passing statistics on a winning football team.

Most people are well aware of the characteristics and pitfalls of a cost center. In a cost center, everyone knows the reward for ending the year under budget. Foolish action taken late in the year to avoid finishing below budget was recently illustrated in the comic strip rendition of management incompetence--Dilbert. If our game is being scored in dollars, let's figure out a way to use the scoring system to demonstrate conclusively that we can make more money for our companies by using better methods.

As mentioned, cost per replacement asset value is a frequently used scoring measure for maintenance effectiveness. This measure says we must reduce costs to some arbitrary value. What would be the reaction if we could begin from this measure to demonstrate conclusively that we could make more money for our company by playing the game from a profit perspective? The game would be scored on effectiveness measured in opportunities gained, increased output, quality, and profit rather that cost. Some are doing just that with spectacular results.

In a prior editorial I mentioned economic value added (EVA) as a more comprehensive measure of value and equipment effectiveness. The complete paper is posted on the MIMOSA web site: www.mimosa.org. If you think we ought to be playing a profit center game and scoring results in terms of effectiveness, please take a look and let me know what you think about EVA and producer value as a beginning. It certainly isn't the complete answer but it's probably part of the answer.

I'm convinced that if we want to be recognized for our contribution to enterprise profitability, we need to change mentality from cost to profit, and demand a scoring system that conclusively demonstrates real contribution in financial terms. MT

In any event, reliability is a much more common word in the titles of conference papers and magazine articles this year. And a number of maintenance managers are trading in their business card for new ones that read Reliability Managers. (Does that mean they are doing their jobs differently now?) The speed at which people are becoming reliability managers reminds me of the old cartoon of the nerd at graduation with the caption: "Four years ago I couldn't even spell engineer, now I are one."

Just what is a maintenance and reliability manager? What knowledge and skills must that person possess? What attitudes and philosophies make that person a professional? That is exactly what SMRP's Professional Certification Committee (PCC) is trying to find out. The committee's objective: To create an industry-recognized competency and knowledge standard for maintenance and reliability professionals, by developing an educational system to teach the stands and a certifying mechanism to recognize their applications.

The PCC has initially organized the core competencies worth measuring into three categories:
• Work process reliability, covering business processes such as financial and resource management and work processes such as management of work, materials, and contracts.
• Manufacturing reliability, covering equipment reliability and process reliability.
• People reliability, covering leadership, development, communications, and performance management. We applaud this activity. In fact, we are participating on the committee. And we invite your participation.

If you have developed job descriptions or performance requirements that may help the committee define the core competencies of maintenance and reliability professionals, we invite you to send them to us at MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY so we can share them with the committee.

Regular reflection on who you are and hwat you do is a valuable exercise whether or not you share your reflections with the committee. MT

In fact, it is not uncommon to come back years after implementation to find that the planned-for payback never materialized. Further, often only a fraction of the capabilities that the software vendor built into the system are being effectively utilized. Why?

The reasons for CMMS failures are as different as the companies implementing them. Often the blame is put on the software package selected or vendor support provided. But that is usually an excuse and not the real reason these failures occur. Failures can usually be traced to one or more of these five primary causes:

1. Using a CMMS to solve the wrong problem. Sometimes companies choose to implement a CMMS to solve a problem that is not system related at all. They may, for example, adhere to maintenance practices that are inappropriate or obsolete; or they may have neglected training in the past; or the organizational structure is wrong for doing business in today’s environment. Until these problems are addressed, no system will help and, in fact, may exacerbate the problem. Before embarking on any CMMS project, make sure the problem has been defined correctly.

2. Treating the project as a technology project. In more cases than most of us like to admit, CMMS projects are treated as technology projects. That is, great care is taken to insure that system technology meets certain criteria, such as effective use of object oriented technology, NT (or Windows 95, etc.) compliance, or designed using industry standards. Specialists evaluate packages on their technology, on the various features and functions that one system offers over another. It is not unusual for organizations to spend as much as a year—and sometimes longer—looking at and evaluating various CMMS packages. The technology is important and clearly should not be overlooked, but it is often not the most critical aspect of the project. Usually it is the easy part. Change is the hard part. CMMS projects are more about change management than about technology.

3. Selecting the wrong software package for the job. Too often, CMMS packages are selected that are not appropriate for the solution that is needed. For example, features and functions of one software package may be appropriate for maintaining rolling stock but may be inappropriate for a process plant with a large amount of fixed equipment. A mismatch between system capabilities and solution requirements usually occurs because a rigorous process for evaluating and selecting a package to meet the solution requirements was not followed.

The evaluation process must start with a good definition of requirements: business functions and capabilities that must be supported, technical considerations (computer platform, network, Internet enabled, etc.), integration with other systems, financial health of the software vendor. The process must insure that the software packages can be evaluated objectively and consistently.

4. Poor project management during implementation. Having a written project plan is certainly a start to good project management, but by itself is not sufficient. Project plans must be comprehensive and realistic. They must be followed and used as a gauge to track progress. It is necessary for people to take responsibility for tasks delegated to them and then to be held accountable for the results. It also means communicating and setting realistic expectations.

5. Inadequate change management. Of the five primary causes of project failure, change management is the one that is most often overlooked. Yet, effectively managing change in the organization is critical to long-term CMMS project success. Change cannot be left to chance. It must be planned and carefully executed.

Develop a vision for maintenance
Change management starts with the development of a vision of how maintenance is to function once the software has been installed and is in its steady state. A properly constructed and communicated vision sets the stage for all that follows. It describes, in terms that can be easily understood by every worker in the plant, at least the following:

Role of maintenance in the plant’s success and its expected contribution. It is important for people affected by the CMMS project to understand just how maintenance contributes to plant and equipment performance. This understanding creates the environment for maintenance performance metrics that are meaningful in an overall business sense to the operation.

Approach to maintenance taken by the plant. For example, if the plant has adopted reliability centered maintenance (RCM) as its approach to plant maintenance, then RCM should be incorporated into the maintenance vision.

How computerized tools, such as a CMMS, will support the business processes. The vision statement should include at least a high-level description of the way people and equipment will interact with the system. It also should show how the CMMS will support the maintenance organization and the various functions performed by it.

Interactions that maintenance will have with other functions and other systems. Understanding the level of interaction that maintenance has with other functions of the organization and with outside entities is key to defining the CMMS requirements, identifying system integration requirements, and developing comprehensive operating policies and procedures. If there are other systems that tie closely to the CMMS system, the nature of that tie must be clearly understood and incorporated into requirements.

Manage change for positive results
Communication is another change management component that is often treated as an afterthought. An effective, successful communication plan requires careful thought and planning. It is through communication that expectations are set and project status is shared. It is a way to get the big picture, i.e., the vision, across to the rank and file in the organization so they understand what is happening, why it is happening, and how it will affect them personally as well as the organization. Communication will not solve every project problem, but it certainly will keep a lot of unnecessary ones from cropping up.

It has been said, “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.” Change management requires education for people on the basic concepts of maintenance management. Education’s goal is to elevate to another level the affected plant population’s knowledge and awareness of maintenance. Education begins early in the project and continues until the system is fully implemented. It is an important aspect of communication and does much to explain the vision. It is essential to the training that will follow because it provides context to what is being asked of those interacting with the system.

Training, another key change management component, teaches people “how to” do the job. It must be comprehensive enough to allow the individual to do the job that is required and should be specific to the job at hand. It should be timed so that material is still fresh in the mind of the system user when the system is made available for use. In other words, if a person is a planner/scheduler, it is necessary to train that individual only on the specifics of planning and scheduling. If an effective education program has been put in place, then the context of planning and scheduling has already been covered. Often, training requires training beyond the specific CMMS software, such as when an organization is migrating from a manual environment to a computerized one. It may be necessary in that case to conduct computer fundamentals training before specific CMMS training can begin.

I once had a colleague who went across the country telling our plant people that the system that was to be installed was so good it would “walk, talk, sit up, and beg.” The clear implication was that the system would do everything they had ever wanted. Of course, the system could not live up to its billing. It failed. A critical element of any CMMS project’s success is the proper setting of expectations. Left to chance, people will set their own expectations based on their vested interests, concerns, or fears. Key areas where expectations must be properly set include system impact on their jobs, when certain system features and functions will be available, system response, cost of the project, performance to schedule. The key words here are: No Surprises.

Many times in a project, for political or other reasons, people say “Yes” and nod when they really mean “No.” They don’t “buy-in” to the system. “Buy-in” is obtained through a combination of ways: workshops where people actively participate in the solution, communicating the vision and setting realistic expectations, meeting project commitments. Every person affected by the system will want to know how it affects him. Buy-in will not happen until that question is answered. Effective change management addresses this issue.

Management support is essential
Effective change management also requires senior plant management and staff support for the project. Support means more than just signing the project’s Authorization for Expenditure. It means visibly supporting the goals and objectives of the project by clearly indicating to the plant staff the importance of the system to overall plant success. It means providing time to attend critical project reviews and recognizing successes when they occur. It most of all means taking a leadership role that communicates to the rest of the plant staff that “this is important to me and it should be important to you, too.” If plant management is not behind the project, rank and file plant staffers quickly perceive that and act accordingly. MT

Bill D. Parker is a managing consultant in MCI Systemhouse Corp.’s process industries practice, responsible for maintenance management. He can be reached at MCI Systemhouse, 16945 Northchase Dr., Suite 1300, Houston, TX 77060; (281) 875-2007; e-mail bparker@shl.com.

Montana Power uses a variety of machine condition monitoring techniques, including vibration analysis and lube oil analysis. The Colstrip plants were seeking earlier, more accurate identification of bearing problems, and decided to purchase complementary technology specifically designed for early detection of bearing damage. They chose Shock Pulse Analyzers from SPM Instrument, Inc., Marlborough, CT. In a single reading, with no prior trending, the analyzer indicates bearing condition as good, reduced, or bad, and further codes the “bad” condition according to its severity.

While taking readings on one of the motors at the plant, Obland and his coworker, Norm Evans, found a bearing that showed “COND 65—Severe Damage,” indicating the need to perform maintenance immediately. “We couldn’t get the bearing changed without confirmation by vibration analysis—that was the policy. But when we checked with a vibration analyzer, we didn’t find anything that would indicate a damaged bearing,” Obland said.

Because vibration analysis looks at all the signals being generated in a rotating mass, the bearing signal may have been masked by other, stronger nonbearing signals. Vibration analysis involves trending data to determine if there has been a change in a signal and that it is a bad change. Historical data on the Colstrip bearing signal was not available.

A decision from management broke the impasse. The motor was taken apart. The bearing was found to be within days of complete failure. That bearing was the first of a series of bad bearings that were identified with the analyzers before equipment failure occurred.

The instrument analyses the compression waves caused at the first moment of impact between the rolling elements and the raceway, an extremely brief period during which no surface deformation has occurred. The molecular contact at points of impact produces material acceleration, propagated ultrasonically in compression waves (shock pulses). The magnitude of those shock pulses depends on the condition of the surface and on the peripheral velocity of the bearing.

Shock pulses generated by a bearing can increase 1000 percent between the time when the bearing condition is good, to when it needs to be replaced. The company has charted typical shock patterns of the most common bearing types under various load, speed, temperature, and lubrication conditions; the data is part of the instrument’s permanent program.

The analyzer indicates bearing damage by displaying an arrow against the red section of the condition scale; a condition number increases with the severity of surface damage.

The predictive maintenance department at the Colstrip plants has already made a contribution to the bottom line through improved bearing condition monitoring. The team has been diligent at keeping track of its activities and presenting the results of the program to management. “In the first eight months, we had direct traceable savings of $19,696.57 in maintenance hours and parts, by avoiding outage just because we were able to identify and replace bad bearings so quickly,” Obland reports. MT