Mechanical Technology

Mechanical Technology — August 2015

⎪

Proactive maintenance, lubrication and contamination management

⎪

n the last article of this series we

discussed the evolution of the

various maintenance strategies

commonly in use (passive, reactive,

preventative, predictive and proactive).

We also considered how maturity must

be developed in an organisation by pro-

gressively embracing these over time in

order to arrive at an optimum, sustain-

able mix. All of this must of course form

a complementary part of a well thought

out and structured asset management

programme for the organisation as a

whole, but our particular interest is pro-

active maintenance.

One of the more difficult stages

to break through and succeed with

in proactive maintenance is that as-

sociated with predictive maintenance.

Unfortunately many individuals are sold

on the concept and embark down the

path with great enthusiasm and good

intentions, but abandon it when they

become disillusioned with high costs,

difficulty with respect to support, indif-

ferent results and questionable value.

There are many reasons for this, of

which the following are very common:

• Costs are underestimated because

renewal of software licenses, train-

ing, calibration, time to implement,

resource requirements and/or tech-

nology upgrades are partly or wholly

overlooked.

• The equipment requirements are not

properly specified up front so it is ill

matched to needs.

• The in-house champion who went for

the training leaves the organisation

and the successor is disinterested.

• Even worse there is no champion

at all.

• The condition monitoring team works

in a silo. Corrective action is not taken

timeously, if at all.

• In spite of considerable effort and

investment, the apparent yield in

meaningful ‘saves’ is low.

• When there are meaningful ‘saves’,

they are not well publicised in the

organisation.

• Management only sees the expense

and not the avoided costs when there

are ‘saves’.

Quick wins in predictive maintenance

Thermography is an ideal quick-win technique for detecting faulty steam traps, heat loss to defective or

inadequate lagging, overheated bearings, motors with bad cores, heat loss and leaks in buildings.

Mario on maintenance:

In the Mario on maintenance column for this issue, Mario Kuisis discusses the pitfalls in

adopting predictive maintenance strategies and how to avoid them. He goes on to suggest

some quick-win techniques that can be easily adopted to garner management support for

the principle.

• False positives undermine belief in

the approach and/or the technology.

• The necessity and importance of train-

ing is overlooked or underestimated.

• Outsourced services avoid many of

the above problems, but result in

data overload and real value remains

elusive.

Fortunately, there are also many suc-

cess stories where organisations have

realised great benefits over extended

periods of time. So what makes the dif-

ference? Words like foresight, planning,

perseverance and the right combination

of people, equipment and circumstances

come to mind. These are all essential,

but perhaps none is more important than

management commitment. An attitude

that says “I know it can be done, I want

it done, get out there and do it and I will

support you in it.”

Of course this will eventually get the

right result, but it can be made that

much quicker and easier if a good start-

ing point is chosen. A few quick wins

that demonstrate what can be achieved

validates management decisions, pumps

up the champion, encourages the team

and begins the process of winning over

the ever-present doubters and unbeliev-

ers. You may well ask, does such a thing

exist? If you have plant and machinery

to take care of, you better believe the

answer is almost certainly yes, regardless

of your situation.

Take note that management commit-

ment is not only important for launching

the initiative but also for sustainability,

because management can access infor-

mation that quantifies and proves the

ongoing value to the business. Like ev-

erything else, you can only manage what

you can measure, so too with predictive

maintenance. The best systems weigh

investment in predictive maintenance

against avoided costs. The results are

reported regularly in financial terms and

discussed monthly in meetings involving

top management.

Now if truth be told, every peddler

of predictive maintenance wares has