Documents

Implementing Rcm

Description
Implementing RCM recommendations – An eternity or a challenge? By: Walter Nijsen Asst. Maintenance and Reliability Leader Cargill Grain and Oilseeds Europe Doug J . Plucknette RCM Discipline leader GP Allied Conducting a thorough RCM is an investment in time and resources. When executed correctly, however, it will bring value to your organization by increased plant reliability, integrity and productivity. To capture this value, it is vital to follow and
Categories
Published
of 25
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Implementing RCM recommendations – An eternity or a challenge? By: Walter Nijsen Asst. Maintenance and Reliability Leader Cargill Grain and Oilseeds Europe Doug J. Plucknette RCM Discipline leader GP Allied Conducting a thorough RCM is an investment in time and resources. When executed correctly, however, it will bring value to your organization by increased plant reliability, integrity and productivity. To capture this value, it is vital to follow and implement all the recommendations generated during the RCM analysis. While this may seem both simple and logical, many organizations are failing in this aspect, which can turn the RCM implementation into an eternity. How to turn this eternity into a challenge? To answer to this question, we must first ask ourselves, how do we plan to implement the tasks that came out of our RCM analysis? In the last years at Cargill, we have tried two approaches: -   Single plant approach -   Company Corporate / Business Unit approach Single Plant Approach Looking back at dozens of analyses performed in the past, we have used the plant approach most often  believing it to be best in terms of a 100 percent guarantee of finding all failures modes, failure causes and effects and defining your maintenance strategy. During your RCM, you will have all the local plant experts at the table, understanding the operational context of this specific installed equipment, understanding the current maintenance strategy and a new detailed maintenance strategy will be the result. With a fully engaged team and correct priority settings from the plant leadership team, the probability for a successful implementation and consequent results coming from your RCM is high. In reality, our experience suggests that not all organizations are as successful in the implementation as they should be. Several reasons can make the single plant implementation last forever, examples are; -   The reliability engineer accountable for the implementation has no responsibilities for engineering and operation, while a majority of the recommendations need to be implemented in these job families. -    No budget is created or set apart to implement the spare part strategy. -    No clear timeline and expectations are set for when and how many recommendations should  be implemented. -   Implementation tracking and reporting is not in  place. -   Priorities at the plant level are changing and RCM implementations are “forgotten and seen as the flavor of the month. -    No implementation manager was assigned to track and report implementation progress to reliability leaders. The last consideration when using a single plant approach are the resources required to perform the RCM analysis while performing your day to day  plant activities. Conducting a RCM will take on average about a week and in performing this event we will need to take some experts out of the daily  plant operations. This time and resources investment is not always easy to make and often results in interruptions in the RCM schedule. These single  plant analyses often result in performing RCM on similar assets at multiple sites and while the outcome will be a maintenance strategy that is specific to your asset, nearly 75 to 85 percent will be identical. A plant approach (an RCM on a specific  process/system/asset) is appropriate where the consequence of failure dictates this (nuclear, airplanes, etc) The single plant approach maybe the only correct approach to choose while the operational context needs to be evaluated for each failure mode. Company Corporate / Business Unit approach Within less hazardous processes or the more common industry, a Business Unit (BU) approach can be a more efficient and effective approach. The Company Corporate approach is based on conducting a single RCM for a common asset that can be used globally across the entire organization. Within Cargill Europe Oilseeds Business Unit, this has now been in place for two years with success. In the BU approach a common asset is selected using a short criticality evaluation on a BU level to determine which asset is critical for the business  based on safety, food safety, operation and customer impact. After this selection, the following questions are being asked: -   Do these assets have a similar operational context? -   Are the equipments basic functions common and do they have the same Original Equipment Manufacturer? -   Have there been any failures the prior years with un-expected consequence which has impacted the business? Within Cargill Oilseeds Europe, six systems were selected using mentioned criteria. With support and sponsorship from the BU operational leaders a RCM Blitz team was setup to conduct a RCM Blitz analysis on a BU level.  Such a BU RCM team will be led by a certified and qualified RCM facilitator and note taker including a BU Maintenance and Reliability leader or operational leader. The RCM team members are a group of experts from different disciplines (operations, maintenance, engineering, safety) from several locations and each team member is a highly respected among their peers for their knowledge of the selected asset. Before the RCM starts, the team members need to  be prepared and understand their roles and responsibilities in the team. Preparation is done by virtual training on RCM Blitz concepts and having the participants collecting the failure history for the asset at their plant site. After the preparation, the RCM team gathers together at a selected plant and spends a full week on the RCM study without getting disturbed by day to day business or other call outs. During this RCM, not only the plant specific operational context is evaluated but also the operational context and failure modes from other locations. Experience has shown that this will produce about 5 to 15 per cent more failure modes than a site specific RCM analysis. After the completion of the RCM study, a specific implementation tasks list is created and sorted by priority and assigned to specific functions. The final RCM analyses and implementation tasks list is owned by the BU reliability leader and updated when needed. The BU reliability leader distributes the RCM implementation list to the reliability leaders at the site and requested the operational context, failure modes and effect to analyze and compare with their plant / system. We have learned that about 95 percent is common and for about 5 percent failure modes need to be adjusted. What are the benefits of the Business Unit approach? As stated before, having the experts from the whole organization together is a significant benefit. We have experienced different views on failure  probability where one location has never noticed a failure mode occurring, other locations have had it several times. This triggers a different priority setting on the implementation task, but also this experience is brought into the RCM with multiple implementations and recommendations to follow up. Another benefit is the design review during the RCM study. The principle of RCM is to identify all functions (components) of an asset as it is in current state. When getting experts on the table, having the same installation for decades on their plants you can imagine some installations have had design reviews and improvement installed as a results of experiences in the past. These design reviews and additional functions are brought in discussed and evaluated. This would never have happened when only looking to the asset of one single plant. A smart person once said; “you do not know what you do not know.” We found this to be true as we gathered our experts for the RCM analyses and discovered several plants had made some significant design changes to our assets, some were successful and some were not. What makes the probability of successful implementation higher with a BU approach? The answer to this question is very simple: competition and the desire to be successful! Let’s explain. By the time we began performing RCM analyses at the BU level, we had some experience using the single plant approach. Looking back at these analyses, we noted that those that were implemented resulted in improved reliability. Understanding this, we understood that we must focus on building a successful implementation plan; we started this by getting RCM on the Dashboard at the BU level by tracking and showing implementation status site by site. The hope here was to clearly show where we were implementing RCM tasks and where we were struggling to implement. Imagine you are a Reliability Engineer at a single  plant and have conducted a single plant approach RCM. You are assigned as the responsible and accountable person to implement the tasks. You struggle to get it implemented at different job families; however, you are afraid to report the implementation status: 1 st  it makes you look a bad leader not able to implement, 2 nd   if you would report your implementation status what is your reference  point? Forty percent implemented in four month is this a good result? Or should it be 80 percent? At a certain moment, you will lose momentum and the risk could be an implementation slow down or even stop. Within Cargill, we have seen this happening and for this reason we changed to the cross functional approach. Now imagine you’re the same Reliability Engineer still responsible and accountable for implementing the RCM recommendation; however, you are asked on a quarterly basis to report the implementation status for all critical failure modes and total failure modes to the BU Reliability Leader. The implementation status per plant is embedded in the BU balanced score card as a leading key  performance indicator. The person selected to track the implementation progress site to site is identified at the RCM Implementation Manager. This balanced score card is communicated and shown at several levels in the organization and it will help to clarify what an acceptable implementation status per period should be. On top of this, the RCM implementation score are in the site management objectives set by BU management. A second effect of this tracking and publishing these figures is a very positive one; it reinforces a desired  behavior! Everybody wants to be in the leading group; why can they make it and us not…. What do we need to do to get the same results?  As said BU management sponsorship is vital to enforce the importance of the RCM implementations in Cargill Oilseeds is stated; “Any failure on a RCM evaluated asset, resulting in high downtime is unacceptable, will be reported and investigated” . The RCM implementation becomes now an organizational objective driven by the local reliability engineer supported by the local management team This tracking and reporting can be achieved without any sophisticated tools, just an excel overview with a standard format for all sites including: failure mode, implementation tasks, responsible person and implementation status (not started, in progress, complete) The BU Score Card is a compilation of all these sheets. An example of a BU RCM score card: Plant A  93% 95% Plant B  92% 82% Plant C  92% 95% Plant D  91% 93% Plant E  89% 90% Plant F  83% 88% Plant G  77% 79% Plant H  73% 63% Plant I  70% 80% Plant J  68% 71% Plant K  62% 38% Plant L  59% 68% Plant M  41% 39% Plant N  30% 29% Plant O  20% 19% Plant P  17% 18% Plant Q  12% 11% Plant R  12% 9% Plant S  0% 0% Plant T  0% 0% BU OVERALL54%53% RCM implementation Score Card Critical Implementation TasksOverall Implementation Tasks  Fig 1. RCM Score card Are we successful? Looking at the score card for this specific analysis, can we say that as a BU we have achieved good  performance in terms of overall BU implementation  performance?  No Can we say that we been successful at all? It depends on how you look at it. The score card shows it is possible to implement 110 RCM recommendations (>90% score with the understanding that some implementation tasks may not apply depending on design differences), however only 5 out of 20 (25percent) of the locations have achieved this. Fifty percent of the plants have an implementation score between 20 and 90 percent. And sad but true 25 percent did not make any  progress. So, yes we have been successful at some sites and these sites are seen as leaders in terms of RCM implementation. As a result, we look closely at these sites to understand the behaviors that resulted in completing their implementation and ask that they share tips and suggestions to plants that are lagging or struggling to implement. This normal distribution and variance of the implementation results is not a surprise; you will always have some leading, a majority in the middle and some lagging plants. It takes relentless leadership and support to have all plants above 80  percent implementation score. The BU reporting and tracking helps, however, to get the organization moving but also determines when you are ready for new RCM implementations. Final point for attention is that having a reporting and tracking system in place is not a guarantee for success. It is simply a tool by which to track the  behavior of implementing tasks and managing the RCM process. Experienced practitioners of RCM understand that a process for analyzing the correct deployment and execution of the RCM tasks needs to be in place if you desire successful results; it is all about flawless execution! Acronyms: RCM: Reliability Centered Maintenance OEM: Original Equipment Manufacture BU: Business Unit  1 How to Manage RCM Implementations across multiple sites Walter Nijsen and Doug Plucknette Track 2 – Manufacturing Process Reliability
Search
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks