December 5-8, 2006
Daytona Beach Florida

Please join us for CMMS-2006, the Computerized Maintenance Management Summit from December 5 through December 8, 2006 in Daytona Beach Florida.
With over 60% of all CMMS implementation falling far short of expectations, we have created a conference to address the strategies, tactics and technology for more productive maintenance work process automation through Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS).

CMMS-2006, the Computerized Maintenance Management Summit is the only event dedicated to Computerized Maintenance Management, Maintenance Inventory, Maintenance Planning & Scheduling and Maintenance Work Management.

You will take away new solutions for maintenance information management that you can put to immediate use as peers and industry experts share knowledge and experience in a non-commercial environment.

Save $200 - Early bird - group and international discounts are available by calling (888) 575 1245 or…

Learn more about CMMS-2006 online

If you are operating equipment over 25 years of age, check with the OEM to ensure that you are using the best lubricant possible for your machinery. After acquiring your equipments lubrication specifications. Check with your lubrication provider. You may find that you are no longer use a premium product. In fact, due to changes in manufacturing processes, you may a lubricant that is totally wrong.

This reader tip was provided during the PdM-2006 Tip Challenge by Michael Tallent,HVAC Trades Coordinator, Southern Methodist University, Dallas , Texas

Thanks Michael - your PdM-2006 CD and your Maintenance-Tips hat are on the way!

Read about the Uptime Best Lubrication Program

Reliability Center can help you learn the underlying reasons why humans make errors and how you can prevent them. We can provide your company with the ability to develop effective policies for managing human reliability and decrease human error in your workplace and—everywhere else for that matter!

Human Error Reduction for Supervisors

Combine Positive Pressure with Artificial Ultrasound

Checking large volumes for leaks is done by placing an ultrasound transmitter inside the test volume and then scanning the seal points (doors, windows, vents, etc…) with an ultrasonic receiver. Leaks are identified by an abrupt increase in ultrasound levels as the inspector passes over the seal area. Rubber seals and gaskets are leak culprits but their faults can be masked during static testing.

Applying a positive pressure inside the volume, in conjunction with the ultrasound transmitter, greatly increases the inspector’s chance of finding leaking seals and gaskets. The pressure gently plies on the seals shifting them away from their rest position and potentially exposing any faults that could affect their ability to tightly seal. For volumes such as clean rooms, where tightness is crucial, the inspection should be performed twice; once in conjunction with pressure, and then again without.

In the hands of a properly trained inspector this method can prove fast, efficient, and useful means of ensuring the tightness of virtually any neutral pressure volume.

This tip supplied by SDT North America
http://www.sdtnorthamerica.com
905-377-1313

More Ultrasound Resources

The very foundation of Lean Maintenance is Total Productive Maintenance (TPM). TPM is an initiative for optimizing the reliability and effectiveness of manufacturing equipment. TPM is team-based, proactive maintenance and involves every level and function in the organization, from top executives to the shop floor.

Tip provided Ricky Smith, Co-Author of Lean Maintenance

Learn More About Lean Maintenance Book by Ricky Smith

By: Rob MacArthur, President Genesis Solutions

Asked to pen this piece on Enterprise Asset Management (EAM), I was struck with a radical idea. I would script the definitive and all encompassing manual for EAM. Not only that, but it would be written so that an 8 year-old could understand it. As it turns out not many people involved with EAM are of that age, so I figured I’d just keep it as simple as possible. Here it goes…

Download Your White Paper: EAM Made Simple. Well, Kind of Simple

Editor’s Note: I found this exchange totally enlightening and feel the lesson illuminated extremely valuable. Thanks Heinz - Terry O

The various and sundry exchanges are all interesting; none of them can be disputed. But, as is so often demonstrated by the preponderance of articles in numerous trade journals, and by the work output of hundreds of “benchmarking consultants,” these exchanges usually do little more than state the problem. Few, if any, are giving unequivocal solutions and the writers appear to be unaware that some organizations have implemented solid solutions four decades ago. Here’s how they did it:

In essence, since the early 1960’s and from that time on, my then employer did the following:

1. Assigned a machinery engineer to the project, insisting that he/she reside at the design contractors offices for the duration of the engineering and asset quality and reliability assurance (AQARA) phase of the project.

2. Assigned the same person (!) to the equipment startup team for the duration of the startup and, typically, one full year into the “feed in” or normal operation of the plant (!)

3. Asked the plant manager (first layer of management) to---typically--- head a four-layer organization. His/her second layer of management, which was then called a “Division,” had (a) a Technical Division Manager, (b) a Manufacturing Division Manager, and (c) an HR/PR Division Manager.

4. Insisted that within the third layer of management (comprised of several “Departments") there were---among other Department Heads---an Operations Department Head and a Maintenance Department Head. Both of these reported to the Manufacturing Division Manager who told these two Department Heads about a critically important feature of their careers: He told them that, after an unspecified number of months of “wearing their respective hats,” they would be asked to trade these “hats” and do the other Department Head’s job for, again, an unspecified and entirely variable period of time.

(As an aside, the fourth layer was comprised of section supervisors or group heads. Their job functions reported, of course, to the “Department” layer).

Because of the edict spelled out in (4), above, the two Department Heads cooperated with unprecedented effectiveness. They leaned each other’s job; there was never any bickering. The Manufacturing Division Manager was held accountable for quality and throughput. He had no excuse and could not blame non-performance on people (Department Heads) who reported to him in the first place.

By Heinz Bloch

Read the Purpose Of Maintenance Discussion

Breaking down some barriers

Many companies invest heavily in their asset care strategies, but fail to get the results they require because not enough is done to improve the underlying ‘softer’ issues. For example, one of the main problems that gets overlooked, when introducing a new process or strategy, is the importance that human factors play in its success or failure. There are very few people who deliberately go to work to do a bad job… and even less that like being disliked. So why then, do so many problems exist within a typical workforce?

For instance, operations and maintenance both want reliable plant… so why (in some cases) are their relationships so bad? Clearly, improving this relationship will make implementing new strategies so much easier… especially if several departments have to be involved. Some philosophies (e.g. Root Cause Analysis [RCA] and Total Productive Maintenance [TPM]) try to address this by promoting concepts such as team working and empowerment. However, these changes in culture can often take years to fully implement… and if not managed properly, fail somewhere along the way.

Therefore, one way of rapidly improving relationships between teams is to ‘prove’ that they can make a difference by working together. Rather than implement a strategy across the site (which doesn’t show any results for months - or even years), why not simply make a big difference to the worst piece of equipment on the plant… as a team. ‘Prove’ that by working together you can solve a major problem that helps everyone. Not only does this help break down some of the barriers that have been built up over the years, but it also starts to identify the correct processes and techniques that will inevitably make up the company’s reliability ‘toolkit’.

Tip provided by by Kirk Gillett, Maintenance Management Consultant at The Woodhouse Partnership Ltd.

Learn More About The Woodhouse Partnership Ltd.