Predictive Maintenance: How to Survive PdM Program ......Source: Heinz P. Bloch Technology Report:...

Technology Report

Predictive Maintenance: How to Survive PdM Program Disruptions

www.plantservices.com

Technology Report: PdM/RxM 2

TABLE OF CONTENTSShake off the rust 3

Diagnose what went wrong and get back on the predictive maintenance track

What makes a CBM program sink or swim 10

Here are the factors that will help create and sustain success with

condition-based maintenance

Additional Resources 15

AD INDEXUE Systems • www.uesystems.com 9



If you’ve ever had to restart a predic-

tive maintenance (PdM) program,

you’re not alone. Everyone seems to

have at least one story about a PdM initia-

tive that failed or was ineffective.

How can you make sure yours will go

right when it’s launched and perform well

over the long haul? The common themes

and unique pearls of wisdom will help you

to avoid the costs and frustration of PdM

restarts.

THE ROCKY ROAD TO RELIABILITYPrograms that fail often go out with a

whimper. “I found ultrasound and infrared

(IR) devices in a dust-covered box in a cabi-

net when I was hired here 10 years ago,”

says Brendon Russ, reliability engineer at

Southern Gardens Citrus, a division of U.S.

Sugar (www.ussugar.com/citrus). “My job

was to restart a multifaceted PdM program

that had been dropped.”

The plant had fallen into the trap of think-

ing that PdM would result from just buy-

ing a tool. This had caused previous PdM

attempts to fail, explains Russ. “There was

this thought that by buying this device, we

now have PdM, and life would be great,”

he says. “There wasn’t really any foresight

into building a PdM program, including the

processes and procedures to govern the

use of PdM or the training and information-

sharing needed for others to understand

the program and its value.”

Shayne Jones, O&M manager for mainte-

nance at Salt River Project (SRP) Navajo

Generating Station (www.ngspower.com)

Shake off the rustDiagnose what went wrong and get back on the predictive maintenance track

By Sheila Kennedy, contributing editor



witnessed a PdM initiative fail for com-

mon reasons. “There was a lack of visible

support from management; no synergy;

employee turnover; poor communication

of program value to equipment owners,

maintenance, and operations staff; and

infrequent promotion of finds and saves,”

remarks Jones.

It used to be that the PdM technology

caused problems, but now the technology

is so easy to use that the problems stem

from the people and their actions (or lack

thereof), says Michael Trainor, manager of

asset reliability consulting at SKF (www.

skf.com).

“One plant had a mill motor on a critical

sawing operation indicating a problem over

three months, and even though the vibra-

tion analysis was very sound and the work

request entered in the CMMS was adequate,

the mill’s maintenance team took no correc-

tive action. In the third month, the criti-

cal motor had a catastrophic failure,” says

Trainor. “The team’s inaction caused eight

hours of downtime, more than $18,700 in

repair work costs, and roughly $950 of me-

chanic labor costs.”

Many companies will initiate a PdM pro-

gram and then check the task off their

list as done. This always leads to failure,

suggests Joe Anderson, senior reliability

manager at The Schwan Food Company

(www.theschwanfoodcompany.com). “I

have witnessed a few failures and walked

into plants that have remnants of what

was once a good program,” he says. “Usu-

ally it was due to a combination of three

things: The program manager failed to

show the value PdM provided to the orga-

nization, the management changed, (and/

or) there was insufficient knowledge and

training.”

Bob Kazar, director of reliability for op-

erational excellence at The Wonderful

Co. (www.wonderful.com), agrees that

the majority of programs fail because of

a lack of leadership support, which leads

to a loss in momentum and continuity.

The one exception to this rule he saw was

a fairly large Texas plant with a strong

The Southern Gardens Citrus PdM restart was on par with a new implementation.Source: Southern Gardens Citrus



PdM department, many technicians carry-

ing multiple certifications, and numerous

predictive technologies in use. “Despite

strong middle management support, one

short-term plant manager wanted to make

a point by reducing the department to

one PdM technician,” says Kazar.

“Of course, the PdM backlog skyrocketed

and only the most critical routes and as-

sets received attention,” he continues.

“After six months, the plant manager

boasted that he was proven correct in

that the site no longer needed the PdM

team. Sadly, the reduction in reliability hit

hard within nine to 12 months, but by then,

the plant manager had left the company.

Eventually, the plant would recover, but

not as the division showcase that it once

was.”

Most companies do PdM because it’s the

right thing to do, says Tracy Strawn, presi-

dent of oil and gas services at Marshall

Institute (www.marshallinstitute.com), but

in many cases the program is either poorly

implemented or poorly managed. “About

75% of all the PdM programs I have evalu-

ated as a consultant are ineffective or

failing to deliver,” Strawn says. “They start

out with great intentions, but the pro-

gram is not implemented thoroughly or

completely, or the program is downsized

to the point of delivering little value as

a result of a plantwide austerity or cost-

cutting program.”

When programs aren’t set up correctly in the

first place, they’ll never be as effective or ef-

ficient as they otherwise could be. “When reli-

ability practitioners have a vibration program

but ‘don’t have enough time’ to use other

PdM technologies, that’s when I know there

are missed opportunities,” says reliability

improvement specialist Paul Dufresne. “Their

technician may be spending four to eight

hours collecting vibration data and then eight

to 16 hours analyzing the data, but if the da-

tabase had been set up properly to allow the

software to do the analysis, it would have cut

down on that time and allowed the technician

to use other tools in the PdM toolbox.”

Training is another area of opportunity, says

Dufresne. “I have seen organizations make

an investment in the software and hardware

but cut training out of the project.”

Another sign of ineffective implementa-

tion is repeat failures. “We often wonder

why there are so many repeat failures in the

thousands of machines that are being moni-

tored,” remarks consulting engineer Heinz

P. Bloch. “The problem is twofold: It has

to do with uninformed management and a

tradition-focused workforce. What is need-

ed is a long-term reliability improvement

program that includes root-cause identifica-

tion and correction.”

TIPS FOR GETTING BACK ON TRACKEach PdM program restart project is

unique to a plant and its processes. The



steps taken will depend on the extent of

the program’s decline as well as its causes

of failure. Southern Gardens Citrus’ PdM

program restart was on par with a new im-

plementation, suggests Russ. “We started

at the nuts and bolts of reliability: build-

ing the CMMS, getting the asset criticality

squared away, making sure we did some

PM optimization, and trying to eliminate

some of the waste and focus our efforts,”

he says.

Russ continues: “I built processes and

procedures for each individual technology,

starting with IR, and incorporated indus-

try best practices found at conferences

and training classes, including the safety

aspects. We basically built the program be-

fore buying and handing out the tools. But

the most important step of all was to get

buy-in from both the executive level and

worker level.” Now, he says, “we’re doing

great with ultrasound, infrared, oil analysis,

vibration, motor testing, and some nonde-

structive tests such as liquid dye penetrant

testing and pipe inspections. We can justify

our own existence every year without a

problem.”

Russ strongly urges documentation of basic

roles and responsibilities, processes, and

procedures in a PdM restart. “If someone

wins the lottery or is hit by a bus, you’ll

have something there to follow,” he says.

Schwan’s Anderson recommends a specific

five-step plan for restarting PdM:

1. Educate all affected employees and

management about the value of these

programs.

6 reasons why PdM programs derail:

1. Production doesn’t see the program’s value and therefore provides reluctant support, charac-

terized by not making equipment available to take readings.

2. The PdM group doesn’t act on the data derived from the PdM monitoring, and therefore lessons

aren’t learned and equipment continues to fail.

3. The PdM group fails to employ the correct metrics, such as cost avoidance, and consequently

no one understands the contribution the program is making to the business.

4. The PdM group isn’t provided adequate training upfront (or annual refresher training as the

program matures), and so members’ skills either aren’t sufficiently developed or diminish along

the way – as does accurate data collection.

5. The management team doesn’t understand the value that the PdM group can deliver and conse-

quently doesn’t provide leadership support, as by asking challenging questions, removing imple-

mentation barriers, reviewing key metrics, insisting that the PdM group deliver results and the

organization act on those results, and providing adequate funding.

6. The chosen PdM group leader has an inadequate skill set.

Source: Marshall Institute



2. Have a detailed plan for how you will

implement the programs and develop sus-

tainable systems for their effectiveness.

3. Provide thorough training in the tools and

systems being implemented.

4. Communicate to the organization all of

the cost savings and avoidances as evi-

dence of how the program adds value.

5. Have a plan for continuous improvement.

Unfortunately, most organizations have to

go through a little pain to realize the errors

of their ways, Dufresne indicates. For one

facility experiencing a high level of unreli-

ability, Dufresne evaluated the landscape

and used the P-F curve to get the organi-

zation refocused on PdM tasks that would

add the most value. After an inventory and

audit of the technologies the site was using,

the shortfalls of each tool and process were

identified and corrected. Personnel also

were retrained on how to inspect equip-

ment and collect data. These actions had an

immediate impact on the organization.

“I recommend starting with the one disci-

pline that will add the most value to your

organization and making it right before

adding others,” says Dufresne. “Also, all

PdM programs should be audited on an an-

nual basis to ensure they are operating as

effectively and efficiently as possible.”

Considerable support is needed from the

plant leader to move a PdM program for-

ward again. “Find the right person to lead or

drive the effort – someone who is passion-

ate about the technology and a firm believ-

er in the program,” suggests The Wonderful

Co.’s Kazar. “Sometimes new software must

be purchased, support licenses reinstated,

and training given to new personnel,” he

says. “Procuring training dollars is in itself a

huge hurdle for some plant budgets.”

Kazar emphasizes the need to quantify all

of the program’s benefits for upper man-

agement and putting the value into manag-

ers’ vernacular – the language of business.

“Statistically, 7% of one’s equipment population devours 60% of available funds.” Shown: Large multistage process pump on test at Dengyosha Machine Works in Tokyo, Japan.Source: Heinz P. Bloch



Share the findings throughout the plant

via a monthly enewsletter or other form of

communication, because operating in a vac-

uum will never breed the support needed to

develop and sustain a viable PdM program.

SRP’s Jones recommends making sure the

details of the program are communicated

on a frequent basis to those responsible for

maintaining the equipment. “Weekly meet-

ings with individual stakeholders would be

good,” Jones says. “Monthly should be the

minimum frequency. Consider utilization of

contractors for data collection and analysis

if you are lacking qualified, interested inter-

nal resources.”

It’s best to focus on known problem areas,

suggests Bloch. “By inference and with

few exceptions, the most rapid payback is

obtained by eliminating repeat failures,” he

says. “Statistically, 7% of one’s equipment

population devours 60% of available funds.”

PdM alone will not improve reliability,

cautions Bloch. “We don’t pay sufficient

attention to the basics, such as avoiding

failure with low-risk designs, and we must

not tolerate unexplained repeat failures,”

he says. “PdM will tell us what part is

deteriorating, but we must employ other

means to uncover and then rule out fail-

ure causes. All too often, the root of the

problem is a lack of insistence on consci-

entiously implemented details. Look to the

growing pool of disciplined, well-rounded

technician-retirees for help in teaching

these details.”

Some organizations will invest in initial

training and tools but not follow through to

keep the program alive and well, remarks

SKF’s Trainor. It’s easy to buy hardware and

software for data collection and analysis,

he suggests, but what matters is the com-

mitment the company is willing to make to

investing in its people. Education can take

place in informal lunch-and-learn sessions

or as part of daily planning meetings or op-

erations review meetings.

Finally, track and tell your story: Document

– both in time and dollar value – and share

successes to inspire your team to continue

making progress. “I think people are wired

this way,” says Trainor.

Email Contributing Editor Sheila Kennedy, CMRP,

managing director of Additive Communications,

at [email protected].

Share the findings that result from PdM, such as this ultrasonic bearing inspection on a high-speed bottling line.Source: The Wonderful Company

Ultrasound is a very versatile technology that can be applied to a wide range of applications in your maintenance & reliability activities.

AREAS OF APPLICATION:

• Proactive bearing maintenance by using just the right amount of lubrication• Increase the availability and lifetime of your assets• Troubleshooting mechanical and electrical systems• Reducing energy costs and optimizing compressed air or steam systems

With both handheld and permanent sensors from UE Systems we can help with one or all of the above applications. This makes it a very versatile tool that lets you get the most out of your investment and time.

ULTRASOUND APPLICATIONS

Leak DetectionUltrasonic leak detection can be used on a wide range of leaks: pressure, vacuum, compressed air and every type of gas. ATEX approved instruments for use in hazardous areas are also available for this application.

Bearing Monitoring & LubricationUltrasound inspection can be used on all bearing speeds (high, medium and low). With UE Systems ultrasonic instruments you can easily identify & prevent incorrect lubrication. Set a dB baseline for each bearing, take periodic measurements and note increases on dB levels.

Steam Trap Inspection & ValvesWhen steam traps are faulty, this can cause considerable costs and compromise product quality, safety and lead to energy loss. Ultrasonic technology can be used to determine the condition on each type of steam trap.

Electrical InspectionPartial discharge, arcing and corona all cause ionization, which produces high frequency sound. An Ultraprobe detects these high frequency sounds. You can hear the specific type of electrical failure directly on the headphones and analyze it with UE Systems free software.

ULTRASOUND INSPECTIONUse Ultrasound to optimize your maintenance program!

UE Systems Inc. 14 Hayes St., Elmsford, New York, USA 10523T: +1 914 592 1220 | E: [email protected] | W: www.uesystems.com

BEARING MONITORING

ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONLEAK DETECTION STEAM TRAPS LUBRICATION VALVES



When deciding to implement a

condition-based maintenance

(CBM) tool, there are always

many questions to ask and decisions to

make. Ultrasound or vibration? Infrared or

oil analysis? Motor current testing or preci-

sion alignment? Over the years, I have had

countless conversations with maintenance

and reliability professionals about which

CBM technology is the best.

The question they should be asking is a little

more precise: Which technology can find

the failure modes I’m looking for, and how

early will it be able to find them?

A good CBM program will start with a de-

tailed asset-criticality assessment. Once it

has been determined which assets are the

most critical, the maintenance organization

should then seek to understand their failure

modes. From this base level of knowledge,

the team will then be able to identify the

CBM technology that will find the failure

modes early enough to allow the mainte-

nance team to plan and make repair-or-re-

place decisions before a failure becomes so

severe that safety risks increase and shut-

downs occur.

Once the CBM technology has been chosen,

questions should be asked regarding current

and future needs. For example, the reliability

team might determine an immediate need

for compressed-air leak detection and rec-

ognize a future need for a bearing condition

monitoring program. Therefore, it would be

best to select an ultrasound instrument that

will allow for the easy transition from one

condition monitoring application to the next.

What makes a CBM program sink or swimHere are the factors that will help create and sustain success with condition-based maintenance

By Adrian Messer, CMRP, UE Systems



Another question that should be asked but

is commonly overlooked is what kind of

support is offered by the CBM technology

solution provider. Usually, the provider is

willing to host a lunch-and-learn to discuss

inspection techniques for certain applica-

tions. Software and instrument-specific

webinars are easy to set up and can be an

effective training method.

With the onset of the industrial internet of

things (IIoT) movement, common questions

center around the data collected from CBM

tools. How will the data be utilized? Where

will the data be stored? How can my CBM

technology data integrate with my CMMS or

other monitoring systems?

In my many visits to plants and facilities

each year, there is one thing I have consis-

tently noticed that maintenance and reliabil-

ity professionals can do better: reporting

and documentation. If maintenance is to be

perceived as a value rather than a cost, re-

porting and documenting the findings from

CBM tools are critical. When documenting

problems found with the CBM tool, ROI in-

formation should always be included.

For example, instead of only reporting that

a certain number of compressed air leaks

were found during the last survey, the re-

port should also include the dollar amount

reflected by the energy loss from those

leaks. If the problems found are mechani-

cal in nature, then the report should also

include the costs associated with the poten-

tial downtime that was averted by finding

the problem early. These reports should be

well-documented and shared throughout

the facility, including with upper manage-

ment. At the world-class level, this informa-

tion should be shared with similar facilities

throughout the organization.

WHY DO CBM PROGRAMS FAIL?CBM programs usually fail because of a lack

of clear goals and expectations for them.

CBM program stakeholders need to be

educated about the need for doing things

differently than they’ve been done in the

past. Maintenance and reliability workers

also need to be supported and allowed the

proper amount of time to become familiar

with new CBM tools. Once a tool is in use,

clear expectations must be in place about

how the data and reports will be used to

make better decisions moving forward. A

CBM program will also need to utilize root-

cause analysis on any detected failure. All

of these actions together, performed on

a regular basis, will help sustain the CBM

program.

One thing that M&R

professionals can do

better is reporting

and documentation.



Shifting from a reactive to a proactive main-

tenance approach is a big undertaking that

can create many challenges. Often, stake-

holders choose to ignore the process com-

pletely, citing time as a limiting factor. Two

things must be in place before any CBM ini-

tiative begins: a team of individuals unafraid

to step up to the challenge and a clear set

of goals and expectations for them.

In almost all cases, the sustainable and suc-

cessful CBM programs I have seen were

started by people who weren’t afraid to step

up and take a stand against outdated reac-

tive programs. These individuals recognize

that their organization can no longer afford

to continue to operate in a reactive environ-

ment. They are willing to do things different-

ly, and they will be the champions of change

and progress.

Well-defined goals and expectations are

critical. Maintenance and reliability goals

should reflect the company’s core busi-

ness principles and strategies as well as any

industry-specific corporate and regulatory

compliance standards.

These goals should also take into account:

• Any safety improvements coinciding with

the improved reliability of equipment.

• Customer or supplier satisfaction gained

through enhanced production capabilities.

• Environmental awareness of better energy

efficiency and waste reduction.

• Increased shareholder value through en-

hanced reliability and process efficiency.

PLANNING FOR SUCCESSRegardless of the chosen CBM technology,

having a plan in place before the implemen-

tation of the new tool is critical for success.

In many cases, the organization’s culture is

the biggest hurdle to overcome. There are

many models to help with a change man-

agement initiative; Kotter’s 8-Step Process

for Leading Change is one of the best:

1. One must prepare for the change. In this

phase, there must be a sense of emergen-

cy that links the change to the organiza-

In almost all cases,

the sustainable and

successful CBM

programs I have seen

were started by

people who weren’t

afraid to step up and

take a stand against

outdated reactive

programs.



tion’s long-term goals and enlists leaders

who support the change.

2. Second, a guiding coalition is created

with leaders who will let the team know

what is expected and how others can be

coached to lead the charge.

3. Third, leaders develop a vision of the

change to engage those who will be af-

fected by it.

4. Change is managed by communicating

the vision for buy-in, which helps ensure

that the change is stabilized. At this

point, the team should begin to look for

signs of resistance and then coach and

reinforce as needed.

5. Empowered leaders utilize broad-based

actions, which make it possible for

people to adopt the change, removing

organizational obstacles such as struc-

ture, KPIs, and reporting processes that

are inconsistent with the change.

6. Momentum-building phase, wherein

short-term wins are generated and cel-

ebrated. This increases the probability

that others will adopt the change.

7. Leaders reinforce the change. It’s im-

portant to keep the message alive,

monitor the progress of the change, and

have discussions to keep people from

reverting back to old habits.

8. Finally, the change is incorporated

into the culture of the organization. In

this step, leaders and managers have

the change embedded within policies,

procedures, audit processes, and com-

munications.

Planning for success may also include

a benchmarking visit to a sister site that

already has a relevant CBM program in

place. Additionally, the chosen person-

nel should be properly trained. When

considering an investment in a new CBM

tool, the training cost is usually minimal

compared with the overall cost of the tool.

When budgeting for costs, formal train-

ing should be included if the users are to

get the most out of the tool and have the

right understanding of how to use it.

Additional best practice information for

CBM programs can also be found in indus-

try resources such as the Society for Main-

tenance & Reliability Professionals’ (SMRP)

Best Practices Metrics. This reference

material is available to members of SMRP

at no additional cost. It is compiled from a

wealth of knowledge from industry prac-

titioners. One of the referenced metrics

that is directly related to CBM programs is

maintenance training return on investment,

which is a measure used to determine the

ROI of training maintenance employees.

Tracking this metric will help stakehold-

ers gain information necessary for making

improvements to the facility’s maintenance

and reliability program. Another metric of

importance is the percent of corrective

work from the CBM findings. The SMRP

Best Practices Metrics suggests that at the

world-class level, the share of corrective

work from CBM findings should be greater

than 35%.



SUSTAINING THE EFFORTMaking the transition from reactive main-

tenance to a more proactive strategy

is a big change. To do it, the organiza-

tion must change what it values most.

In a reactive environment, “firefighting”

maintenance is valued, but in a proactive

environment, the strategy should focus on

preventing the fires from ever sparking.

When focus is placed on how the orga-

nization can prevent failures from hap-

pening, the culture begins to shift from

reactive to proactive. There will always be

some reactive problems, but being able to

minimize reactive work will allow for more

time for productive PMs, better planning

and scheduling, increased equipment up-

time, and an increase in overall equipment

effectiveness (OEE).

For all of this to take place, the people in-

volved must be engaged, informed, trained,

and supported. They should have clearly

communicated goals and expectations. Also,

stakeholders in the new CBM strategy should

have a sense of ownership in the program

and understand why their roles are important.

Effective use of condition monitoring tools

can help forewarn maintenance leaders about

potential issues before they become problems

that must be addressed reactively. With some

initial planning and thought, effective change

management, and guidance from industry re-

sources such as SMRP’s Best Practice Metrics,

the CBM program will have a better chance of

being successful and sustainable.

Adrian Messer, CMRP, is manager of U.S. operations

at UE Systems (www.uesystems.com). Contact him at

[email protected].

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES



UE SYSTEMS OFFERS A VARIETY OF ONLINE TRAINING COURSES. Designed by the leaders in airborne/structure borne ultrasound,

these online courses are ideally suited for inspectors of all skill

levels and experiences who want to learn the basics of using ultra-

sound technology for specific applications. Loaded with practical‚

“real-world,” information, these courses get down to the basics

of how an inspector should plan, test, record and report. These

interactive online courses will provide the information needed in a

variety of media‚ – videos, slides, and text with a quiz at the end of

each module to gauge knowledge retention.

Learn more here.

https://www.uesystems.com/training/online-courses/

Predictive Maintenance: How to Survive PdM Program ......Source: Heinz P. Bloch Technology Report:...

Documents

Transcript of Predictive Maintenance: How to Survive PdM Program ......Source: Heinz P. Bloch Technology Report:...