September/October 2006 • Volume 12, Issue 1 • $19.00

ManagementFocus

The Role Of BenchmarkingIn Improving Maintenance

Organizations

InfraredThermography

Thermographic InspectionOf Mechanical Couplings

EAM-CMMSPlanning5 Myths Of

Inventory Reduction

Vibration

How To Fix Vibration Problems

Root CauseFailure Analysis

Is Your Root CauseAnalysis Trigger Happy?

Volume 12, Issue 1

PUBLISHERSKathryn M. GouldingTerrence O’Hanlon

EDITORJoseph L. Petersen

ReLIABILITY®Magazine, (ISSN 1090-3259) is published

bi-monthly by Reliability Magazine, LLC

P.O. Box 34040Knoxville, Tennessee 37930

EDITORIAL INFORMATIONPhone 888.575.1245Fax 865.381.0506

E-mail: petersen@reliability-magazine.com www.reliability-magazine.com

ADVERTISING INFORMATIONPhone 888.575-1245, ext. 114

International 305.735.3746E-mail: bpartipilo@reliability-magazine.com

Copyright©2006 by Reliability Magazine, LLC. All rights reserved. The contents may not be

reproduced in any form without written permission of the copyright owners.

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIPReLIABILITY®Magazine is 100 percent owned

by Industrial Communications, Inc.and Reliabilityweb.com.

Printed in USA

SUBSCRIPTIONS WORLDWIDE

US$99, one year (6 issues)

US$198, two years (12 issues)

US$297, three years (18 issues)

MANAGEMENT FOCUS .......................................................... 5 The Role Of Benchmarking In Improving Maintenance Organizations Benchmarkingisagoodtoolforestablishingabaselineand measuringprogresstowardsobjectives.Usedimproperly, itcanprovideafalsesenseofsecurityorevenworse,steer acompanyinadirectionnotcongruentwithitsobjectives. Thisarticlewilldiscusstheexperiencesandresultsfrom severalbenchmarkingassessmentsofvariousindustries.

Reliability Scorecard Scorecardsarebecominganincreasinglypopularmethod foridentifyingtheelementsnecessaryforsuccessinaspecific categoryofMaintenanceandReliability,weightingtheir importanceandprovidinganobjectivescoretomeasure performance.Thescorecardisintendedforusetodefine elementsthatshouldbeconsideredforinclusioninanew reliabilityprogramaswellasprovideabasisforauditingthe contentandeffectivenessofanexistingreliabilityprogram.

ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS ......................................................... 19 Is Your Root Cause Analysis Trigger Happy? RootCauseAnalysisisusuallyconsideredaproactivetype ofprocess.Butwhatinitiatesyourrootcauseefforts?Isn’t itsomeeventorseriesofeventsthatcausethereactionof RootCauseAnalysis?LearnhowtouseFailureModesand EffectsAnalysis(FMEA)tomakeyourRCAeffortseven moreproactive.

INFRARED THERMOGRAPHY ................................................ 25 Thermographic Inspection Of Mechanical Couplings Learnwhatconditionsarenecessarytomakeaccurate thermographicmeasurementsonrotatingcouplings,and thethermalsignaturesassociatedwiththem,tomakequick andefficientevaluationsofthisvitalpieceofequipment.

EAM-CMMS-PLANNING ......................................................... 30 5 Myths Of Inventory Reduction Inventoryreductionhashadanincreasingfocusin maintenanceactivityoverthepastfewyears.However, tobesuccessful,allinventoryreductioninitiativesmust confrontandovercomeanumberofsystemicbeliefs- the‘5MythsofInventoryReduction’.Thesebeliefstake theformoftruismsthatdriveindividualbehaviorand canundoallthegoodworkfromaninventory reductionprogram.

VIBRATION ................................................................................ 35 How To Fix Vibration Problems Followaseriesofcasehistoriesthatdemonstratetheuseof severaladvancedvibrationanalysistechniques,combined withalittlebitofengineeringandcommonsense,to“fix vibrationproblems.”

Volume 12, Issue 1 RELIABILITY®Magazine 11

MANAGEMENT FOCUSReliability Program Scorecard – Description and Useby John S. Mitchell

Scorecardsarebecominganincreas-inglypopularmethodforidentifyingtheelementsnecessaryforsuccessinaspecificcategoryofMaintenanceandReliability,weightingtheirimportanceandprovidinganobjectivescoretomeasureperformance.Scorecardsareavailableforevaluatingtheeffectivenessofworkandstoresmanage-mentprocesses(RELIABILITY®MagazineVolume10,Issue3).During2005,JackNicholasintroducedacomprehensiveRCMscorecardtomeasuretheextentandcomplianceofaRCMprogram.TheReliabilityProgramScorecardaddstothisbodyofknowledgewithalistoftheprincipalelementsofacomprehensivereliabilityprogramandproposedweights.TheReliabilityScorecardispresentedinaspreadsheetformatthatiseasilyoptimizedforspecificapplications.

AdraftversionoftheReliabilityScore-cardwasthoroughlydiscussedduringfour90-minuteworkshopsconductedatIMC2005,sponsoredbyRELIABILITYTM

WEB.COM.Additionsandmodificationssuggestedbyworkshopparticipantswereincorporatedintoaseconddraftcirculatedforcomment.Thisfirstversionincor-poratesallcommentsandsuggestionsreceivedtodate.

Scorecard ObjectiveTheReliabilityScorecardistheresult

ofaseveralyearefforttodescribethetotalscope,contentandeffectivenessofacomprehensivereliabilityprogram.Thescorecardisintendedforusetodefineelementsthatshouldbeconsideredfor

inclusioninanewreliabilityprogramaswellasprovideabasisforauditingthecontentandeffectivenessofanexistingreliabilityprogram.

Scorecard Overall Description and Content

Thescorecard,inspreadsheetfor-mat,dividesacomprehensivereliabilityprogramintotwelveprogramcategories.Thescorecardconsistsoftwoworksheetsasfollows:

1.CategorySummary

2.DetailedScorecard

ThefirstworksheetoftheScorecard,CategorySummary(seepage14),liststhetwelveprogramcategoriesandthehighestweightedelementswithineachcategory.ThesecondcolumnontheCategorySummary,ElementWeight-%,calculatesautomaticallythroughtheDetailedScore-card(secondworksheet)fromCategoryWeight-%enteredmanuallyinthethirdcolumn.Thiswillbeexplainedindetaillater.

Note: Elements in each of the twelve categories listed on the Summary worksheet have been sorted by weight in descending order. This is intended to emphasize relative priorities of the elements listed. It results in a different sequence than will be found on the Detailed Scorecard. If there is any question regarding origin, the element weight cell will identify the row in the Detailed Scorecard.

It also should be noted that the word-ing of elements on the Category Summary

may differ slightly from wording on the Detailed Scorecard. The description and quartile ranking on the Detailed Scorecard provides an assessment of effectiveness. The Element Weight listed on the Category Sum-mary is the maximum. If a program has high plant and system reliability, optimum maintenance costs, minimum emergency work, to name three elements, the Element Weight listed on the Category Summary is the contribution to total program effective-ness. Taking the logic further, the Category Summary implies that a reliability program with the elements listed, performing at best practice levels, constitutes almost 80% of an optimum program.

(Editor’s Note:The Detailed Scorecard does not appear in this article due to its length. A partial scorecard for reference appears on p.13. However, if you are a subscriber to RELIABILITY®Magazine you can download the complete scorecard at http://www.reliability-magazine.com/scorecard.htm. If you received a complimentary copy of RELIABILITY®Magazine, you can subscribe immediately at http://www.reli-ability-magazine.com and get immediate access to the completed scorecard.)

TheDetailedScorecardlistselementsofeachofthetwelveprogramcategoriesintencolumns.Theleftmostcolumnlistsindividualelementsthatareconsiderednecessaryforeachprogramcategory.Thenextthreecolumns,fromlefttoright,definenecessity,comparativemetricsandanyadditionalrequirementssuchasacharterorprocedurethatmustbepub-

12 RELIABILITY®Magazine Volume 12, Issue 1

lishedtomeetrequirements.

Thefifthandsixthcolumnsassignpercentageweightsforeachelementwithinthecategory.Individualweightsforeachelementwithinthecategoryaremanuallyenteredasapercentageof100%inthefifthcolumn.Elementweightswithinthereliabilitypro-gramasawholeareautomaticallycalculatedbasedontherelativeweightsenteredinthethird,CategoryWeight,columnontheCategorySummary(firstworksheet)andrepeatedinthetoprowofeachcategory.

Note: The spreadsheet is constructed such that changing a Category Weight (third column) on the first worksheet, Category Summary, will apply the change to the corresponding category in the Detailed Scorecard. All program element weights within the scorecard category automatically recalculate using the relative weights in the fifth column of the Detailed Scorecard. The only requirement when adjusting either category weights in the Summary sheet or element weights in the Detailed Scorecard is to manually maintain the total at 100% shown in the last line of the Category Weight column in the Summary, top line of the Element Weight column in each category on the Detailed Scorecard.

Toprovideacheckonthemathandformulas,theProgramWeightlistedinthetoprowofeachcategoryintheDetailedScorecard,shownasapercentage,isthevaluetransmittedfromtheCategorySummary.Thelastrowinthesamecolumn,

expressedasadecimal,sumstheindividualprogramweightsforeachelementwithinthecategory.Iftheformulasandentriesarecorrectthetwonumbers(absolute)willbeidentical.

ThefourrightmostcolumnsontheDetailedScorecarddenotequartilespreadbetweenthebestperformersandtherest.Asanexample,firstquartileperformersshouldhaveanoverallplant,systemandequipmentavailabilitygreaterthan95%.Anoverallavailabilitylessthan70%indicatesfourthquartileperformance.Itisrecognizedthattheremaybeadjustmentsrequiredforspecificprocessesandindustrygroups.

SeveralessentialelementsofatotalmaintenanceprogramsuchasWorkandStoresManagementprocessesarenotlistedbeyondmetricsthatarekeytotheeffectivenessofareliabilityprogram.ForotheressentialelementssuchasRCMandRCFA,thescorecardonlyaskswhethertheprogramisinplaceandeffective.Inbothcas-es,detailsnecessarytoevaluatethecompletenessoftheseprocesses/programsandassesstheireffectivenessareavailableinliteratureonthesubject.Thedetailswillbenecessarytoassignpartialscoresindicatingthecompletenessandeffectivenessoftheprogram.

AnabbreviatedglossaryfromthedraftfourtheditionoftheAsset Optimization Handbookislocatedonpages15-18toan-sweranyquestionsregardingterminologyorhowaspecifictermisusedwithinthescorecard.

Volume 12, Issue 1 RELIABILITY®Magazine 13

Use of the ScorecardThe scorecard is yours and can be used in any way you wish.

As one way to get started, you might begin as follows:

1. Review the Category Summary worksheet to determine if all the elements you consider important to your site are listed.

Duringthepreparationofthescorecard,andespeciallydur-ingtheworkshopsconductedatIMC2005,ithasbeenveryapparentthatawidediversityofopinionsexistonthecompo-sitionofareliabilityprogramandweightofelementsdepend-ingonthespecificfacilityandtypeofprocess.Hopefullythisscorecardwillprovideyouwithagoodstartingpoint.

2. Review the Detailed Scorecard, second worksheet. Are there any elements listed on the Detailed Scorecard that are important to your site but don’t appear on the De-tailed Scorecard or Category Summary? You can easily add to the Scorecard or Summary,

ItisassumedthatthatyouaresufficientlycompetentwithExceltobeabletoaddrowsonboththeSummaryandScorecard,insertthecorrectformulasintheweightcellsandthenecessaryformulasontheSummaryandDetailedScorecardtolinkthetwo.Ifthereisanydoubt,youcanviewcurrentcellformulasandsimplycopyanexistingcellformulaintoanaddedcellandrevisethereferencesasnecessary.

3. With all the important elements listed on the Category Sum-mary, adjust the weights to obtain more or less the impor-tance you consider applicable for your facility. You may have to adjust weights on the Detailed Scorecard as well to obtain the results you are seeking.

Remember,tomaketheweightsworkyoumustmanuallyadjusttheweightsofeachcategoryontheCategorySummaryandindividualelementsontheDetailedScorecardtototal100%.

14 RELIABILITY®Magazine Volume 12, Issue 1

AcknowledgementsThecontributionofallparticipantsintheIMC2005

workshopsisgreatlyappreciated.Yourcommentsandsugges-tionscontributesignificantlytotherangeanddepthoftheScorecardandthevaluethatwillbegainedbyallusers.SpecialthankstoTerrenceO’HanlonforencouragingtheeffortandsponsoringthefourworkshopsatIMC2005.VeryspecialthankstoJackNicholasforcontinuingwordsofencourage-ment,thoroughlyreviewingmultipledraftsandnumeroushighlyconstructivecomments.

About the Author Twice retired, John Mitchell currently conducts Asset Manage-

ment / Optimization workshops and provides coaching for organi-zations committed to improving the productivity, utilization and effectiveness of physical assets. Prior to his last retirement he was Site Manager, leading the implementation of a comprehensive, asset productivity improvement initiative in a large petrochemical complex. During his 40 years of professional experience, Mitchell has held a broad variety of positions within the Reliability and Maintenance (R&M) and Condition Assessment fields. He can be reached at jsmitchell@worldnet.att.net.

GLOSSARY OF TERMSAvailability:

Thetimeasystemorassetisinanoperablestatecapableofmeetingallmissionrequirements.

Asset, Physical:Fixedandrotatingequipment,firedandunfiredheatexchangers,electricaldistributioncomponentsandcabling,controlinstrumentation,piping,valvingandstructures.

Asset Utilization: PercentageoftimeaplantisoperatingatMaximumDemonstratedProductionRate,withperfectqualityanddefinedyield.

Benchmarking:Aprocessformeasuring“bestpractice”performanceandcomparingtheresultstocurrentperformanceinordertoestablishperformanceobjectivesandidentifyopportunitiesforimprovement.Thecomparisonto“bestpractice,”oftencalledaGAPanalysis,leadstoaprioritizedarrayofopti-mizingchangesdirectedtogaining“bestpractice”levelsofeffectiveness.

CBM:SeeCondition-BasedMaintenance.

Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS): Acomputersystemformeasuring,managing,andanalyz-ingthemaintenanceprocess.IncludesMaintenanceRepairOverhaultaskplanningandscheduling,inventorycontrolandmanagement,laborandmaterialcostaccounting.

Condition Monitoring (CM): Theprocessofrecordingmeasurementsthatdefinecondi-tionwithoutdisruptingoperation(e.g.,vibration,fluidandelectricalcharacteristics,andthermalgradients)andcomparingeachtolimits.

Condition Based (or Predictive) Maintenance (CBM / PdM): Maintenancebasedonactualcondition(objectiveevidenceofneed)obtainedfromin-place,non-invasivetestsandoperatingandconditionmeasurements.

Effectiveness: Performingthecorrecttaskefficiently–resultsoriented.

Efficiency: Performingagiventask(notnecessarilythecorrecttask)well–taskoriented.

Volume 12, Issue 1 RELIABILITY®Magazine 15

RELIABILITY® Magazine LLC PO Box 34040Knoxville TN 37930 Tel: 888-575-1245 x6 Fax: 865-381-0506

THE MAGAZINE FOR IMPROVED PLANT PRODUCTIVITY

RELIABILITY® Magazine Subscription Form Move ahead with other RELIABILITY® Magazine readers by subscribing now at http://www.reliability-magazine.com orcomplete this form and return it to the address above.

Subscription Details

Name _______________________

Title _______________________ USA

Company _______________________ □ 3 Years (18 issues) $297

Address _______________________ □ 2 Years (12 issues) $198

_______________________ □ 1 Year (6 issues) $99

City, State, Zip _______________________ International

Country _______________________ □ 3 Years (18 issues) $297

Phone _______________________ □ 2 Years (12 issues) $198

Fax _______________________ □ 1 Year (6 issues) $99

Email _______________________

Credit Card Details AMEX MC VISA (circle one)

Card Number _______________________ Ex Date _________

Name on Card _______________________ Billing Address (this is the address where the credit card statements are delivered)

Address _______________________________________

City, State, Zip _______________________________________

Country _______________________________________

Signature _______________________________________