The document discusses optimized reliability processes in maintenance, emphasizing that skipping steps or poor performance can lead to defects known as failures. It highlights the importance of a proactive reliability approach, effective planning, and adherence to standards to minimize reactive maintenance and improve overall asset reliability and cost efficiency. Additionally, it presents comparisons between current maintenance practices and world-class standards, underscoring the role of systematic execution in achieving optimal results.

1. Results from Optimized Reliability
Presented by: Ricky Smith, CMRP
February 2013
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

2. “A Proactive Reliability Process is a supply chain. If a step
in the process is skipped, or performed at a substandard
level, the process creates defects known as failures. The
output of a healthy reliability process is optimal asset
reliability at optimal cost.”
― Ron Thomas, former Reliability Director,
Dofasco Steel, Hamilton, ON
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

3. Maintenance
• To Maintain
• Preserve, and Protect from Degradation
• Maintain Asset Reliability
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

4. Reliability
Meeting the functional requirements of the end user
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

5. Reactive Maintenance Attributes
• Ineffective or No Planning and Scheduling
• PM Compliance has a wide variance
• Performing PM on Equipment that continues to breakdown
• Overnight deliveries sit for weeks, months
• Everyone works as hard as they can with little if any
movement seen toward proactive
• Storeroom is Chaos (people standing in line at 7:00am
waiting on parts)
• Contractor replacing equipment with no one validating if the
defect was eliminated or work was completed accurately
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

6. Variation is Your Enemy - Causes
• No Repeatable/Effective Procedures
• Lack of Discipline in maintenance execution
• The wrong maintenance approach to reliability
• Production not operating the equipment to standard
• PM Compliance is Too Wide
• Doing Too Much PM
• No standards or specifications
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

7. Dr. Deming:
“Your system is perfectly designed to give you the results
you are getting.”
Electric Motors – Plant Wide (Mean Time Between Failures)
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
Hours
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
7 Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

8. World Class Standards – Where are you?
• PM Execution – 15%
• PM Results – 15%
• PdM Execution – 15%
• PdM Results – 35%
• Total Work “Planned” – 90%
• Reactive Work – Less than 2%
• Stock-outs – less than 2%
• Scheduled compliance by day/week – 85 to 90%
• Failure Elimination is a key focus of all (FRACAS)
• Work orders are closed out with ALL Codes ID
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

9. Alcoa Mt Holly vs. World Class Standards
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

10. Cost Comparison of Maintenance Programs
($ per Horsepower)
Maintenance Cost
Run to Preventive Predictive Precision
Failure
Source: EPRI Power Generation Study Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

11. Safety and Reliability
Injury Rate (% of Base)
135 120
OEE (% of Base)
115 115
95 110
75 105
55 100
35 95
15 90
13
17
21
25
28
33
37
41
45
48
53
1
5
9
OEE
Month Injury Rate
Source: The RM Group, Knoxville, TN
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

12. Maintenance Costs vs. Vibration Analysis
Maintenance Costs ($) %RAV
Vibration Analysis (%)
Source: 1997 Benchmarking Study in Chemical Processing industry, John Schultz to be featured in
Ron Moore’s new book What Tool? When? Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Strategies and Tools
Source: John Schultz, RM Group
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

13. Maintenance Costs vs. Equipment on PM
Maintenance Costs ($) %RAV
Equipment on PM (%)
Source: 1997 Benchmarking Study in Chemical Processing industry, John Schultz to be featured in
Ron Moore’s new book What Tool? When? Selecting the Right Manufacturing Improvement Strategies and Tools
Source: John Schultz, RM Group
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

14. Why does it all matter?
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

15. Maintenance Cost % of RAV
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©

16. Questions/Comments?
Copyright 2013 GPAllied©