According to a post on Reliabilityweb.com, the concept of Precision Approach focuses on achieving a high level of precision in our work to minimize failures, with wear-out failures being the only expected outcome. Maintenance data suggests that only a small percentage of industrial equipment actually reaches the wear-out stage, indicating that the majority of mechanical failures are caused by preventable human errors. This implies that non-precision maintenance practices are responsible for non-wear out failures. Could implementing precision maintenance techniques help prevent these random failures? Initially, it may seem like there is little that can be done to avoid such incidents, but a focus on precision maintenance could be the key to reducing these unforeseen failures.
Hello Josh, There are several points made in the statements that can be debated. To simplify the discussion, I will list them numerically. First, the statement mentioning "our jobs" seems to focus solely on maintenance work. However, since maintenance only accounts for around 30-35% of failures, with design and operations playing a significant role in the rest, how much of a difference will precise maintenance work make? Secondly, the claim that only about 10% of industrial equipment reaches the wear-out stage overlooks the fact that failures occur at the failure mode level, not necessarily at the equipment level. This is a unique feature of complex systems, as discussed in the Nowlan & Heap report. Moving on, while human intervention can influence equipment performance, wear-out often results from the complexity of equipment rather than human error. Lastly, the idea that precision maintenance can prevent random or non-wear out failures may not hold true for the majority of failure modes. The airline industry example highlights how despite operating and maintaining planes to high standards, a significant portion of failures are non-age-related. Precision work is beneficial for critical items and can boost pride, but it may not drastically reduce non-age-related failures, as seen in the N&H report. Nonetheless, it can enhance Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) significantly. V.Narayan.
In Reliability Magazine Volume 10 Issue 6, the discussion surrounds the topic "Why Planned Maintenance is No Longer Sufficient?" The implementation of the Action Team process at Lima focused on defect elimination to shift towards the Precision Domain instead of solely relying on planned maintenance practices. Surprisingly, it was discovered that skipping the Planned Domain and focusing on defect elimination in the Precision Domain was more effective and efficient. Unlike planned maintenance, which only improves efficiency without reducing workload, the Precision Domain aims to eliminate root causes of losses such as defects leading to production loss, waste, and safety incidents. By adopting a proactive approach to addressing defects, the amount of work required is significantly decreased. This concept aligns with Behavior Based Safety methods, as depicted in Figure 9 using a safety triangle adaptation. The article also hints at the benefits of precision maintenance and poses the question of what strategies were successfully implemented to transition from reactive to the precision domain.
Josh, how can anyone possibly argue against the idea that reducing work by addressing the root causes of losses, such as defects leading to production loss, waste, and safety incidents, is crucial? Isn't it as American as apple pie? It is imperative to focus on eliminating these root causes and promoting behavioral changes. The key point is not just meeting high standards of quality, but eradicating failure causes. While reducing non-age-related failures by addressing root causes is a commendable goal, it does not address issues stemming from complexity rather than work quality. Poor work quality can lead to inefficiencies and early failures. V.Narayan.
Dear Josh, I am finding it difficult to grasp the main points of this discussion. Based on maintenance statistics, it is suggested that only around 10% of our industrial equipment reaches the wear-out stage, with the remaining 90% of mechanical failures being attributed to "personnel avoidable events." This implies that human error or interventions are responsible for the majority of failures. While I believe human error plays a significant role in asset failure, I am cautious about accepting the 90% failure rate. Precision maintenance aims to do the job correctly, which I fully support. However, I have reservations about the statistics presented. I plan to share a diagram illustrating the progression of asset management from reactive to collaborative stages in the next few days. This may be of interest to you.
I empathize with the sentiments expressed here, as I have encountered similar challenges during my time at DuPont when we tackled these issues. As an engineer, my instinct is to analyze the data to determine the best course of action for addressing equipment reliability issues. However, it became apparent that reliability is not solely dependent on equipment, but also on the people operating it. Despite studies showing that 90% of failures are not solely due to human error, it is evident that people can play a significant role in resolving issues that they may not have caused. My belief in the possibility of a 90% reduction in failures was solidified during a TPM conference I attended in Japan in 1991. Award-winning companies shared their experiences with TPM implementation, reporting an elimination of 90 to 98% of breakdowns upon reaching a high level of TPM performance. This success was not about reducing workload, but about enhancing precision across various aspects such as operations, purchasing, design, and maintenance. The key takeaway from observing TPM in Japan was the importance of cross-functional cooperation and a focus on achieving reliable production. It became evident that a substantial part of reliability issues stemmed from organizational shortcomings rather than equipment deficiencies. While my inclination as an engineer is to focus on technical solutions, the evolution of equipment reliability has outpaced our ability to effectively manage and run it. The concept of the Precision Domain, as highlighted by Winston P. Ledet, emphasizes the importance of precision in all aspects of operations to minimize failures. The idea is that with a mastery level of precision in maintenance and operations, the majority of failures can be avoided, with only wear-out failures remaining as outliers. This underscores the necessity for a holistic approach involving the entire organization to achieve high reliability levels. In conclusion, the path to high reliability requires a collective effort from all members of the organization, transcending the traditional roles of maintenance personnel and reliability engineers. By embracing the Precision Approach and fostering a culture of precision and cooperation, it is possible to significantly reduce failures and enhance overall equipment reliability.
When it comes to plant improvement initiatives, Dupont's name comes up frequently in my experience. However, it's a first for me to come across an article detailing their efforts. I appreciate the explanation provided regarding the precision domain, which covers a wide range of organizational aspects. Can you elaborate on the characteristics of precision operations, purchasing, design, maintenance, and cooperation? I am intrigued by the concept of cross-functional and holistic change, as well as the implementation of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) with all pillars in place. It's interesting to consider transformational change for significant performance enhancement, or adopting the theory of constraints to improve the entire chain at once instead of incrementally. Ultimately, decisions lie in the hands of top management. With the current high oil prices, convincing individuals to embrace major changes can be challenging since there is a preference for smaller, incremental changes due to larger profit margins. I'm curious about the breakdown works included in your data - I typically believe breakdown works should account for less than 10% of total work to minimize production or HSE losses.
Thank you, Winston, for the clarification. Congratulations on the manufacturing game, it's a fantastic tool for adult learning. The statistics you mentioned from the TPM conference are intriguing. Have there been any published scientific studies on these issues? While psychology research is abundant, I don't recall any specifically focused on this area. Regarding the precision domain you referred to, is this about ensuring accuracy throughout the company? Who was behind the development of this concept? Cheers!
Hello Winston, I fully endorse your efforts to ensure the entire organization operates at optimal quality levels. While I agree with the importance of precision, it's essential to recognize that quality standards differ depending on the type of machinery. For instance, aligning a high-speed turbo machine requires different standards compared to aligning a vee-belt sheave. The same distinction applies to acceptable vibration levels in various types of machinery. I also agree that human error is a primary cause of failures, and changing the culture to one that does not tolerate failure is crucial. Years ago, we had a Refinery with mechanics mostly from Boeing, resulting in significantly better pump Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) compared to other locations. The success was attributed to the mindset of both mechanics and operators, who were dedicated to preventing failures. Your emphasis on a 'precision' mentality aligns with my beliefs, although I do have reservations regarding wear-out failures. These failures are a natural outcome of equipment complexity, as noted in the Nowlan & Heap study. Even companies like United Airlines, known for their high operating and maintenance standards, experienced age-related failures. While quality workmanship can reduce early failures and prolong the average time to failure, age-related failures remain inevitable. Despite our differing opinions on this matter, I fully support your mission, V. Narayan.
Thank you for your feedback. I have not come across a comprehensive study analyzing the outcomes of Total Productive Maintenance (TPM) as per your request. Initially, we referred to this area as the TPM domain after observing it in the DuPont benchmark study. However, upon advice from Charles Latino, the founder of Reliability Center Inc., we renamed it the precision domain. Latino highlighted that some facilities achieved comparable results to TPM winners through Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM). Although we did not assess any sites implementing RCM in the DuPont benchmark, entities like Dofasco Steel demonstrated significant enhancements, leading to the change in terminology to the precision domain. It is apparent that we lack a precise definition of precision other than the emphasis on employees effectively executing their responsibilities. Our observations indicate that facilities where employees prioritize defect elimination tend to achieve superior performance levels.
Thank you, Winston, for sharing this valuable information. I was fortunate enough to have met Charles, and I completely understand the points you are making. Cheers!
Hello Winston, I noticed in your previous message that you mentioned your direct involvement in DuPont's benchmarking project known as "best of the best" in the 1980s. Am I understanding this correctly? I have come across snippets of this study before and have even referenced it, but I have yet to find a way to access the full report. Is this document copyrighted? If so, how can I legally obtain a copy of the final documentation for this groundbreaking study? Thank you.
Winston expressed gratitude for the insight shared. Despite being at the lower end of the hierarchy, he is facing challenges in garnering support for a shift towards precision maintenance culture from upper management. Are there proven strategies available to guide executives towards embracing excellence in maintenance practices? Despite demonstrating successful and long-lasting repairs, Winston is still struggling to secure buy-in from his superiors.
Apologies for the delay in responding. If you're looking for a complete copy of the Best of the Best benchmark, I recommend contacting Ed Jones at (302) 239-6911 or jjones1432@aol.com. Ed offers benchmarking services using the same methodology utilized at DuPont. Purchasing a benchmark for one of your sites will provide you with a comprehensive report containing various comparison data from the database. It can be challenging to persuade management to prioritize defect elimination throughout the organization. Various approaches, including the Manufacturing Game, have been used with mixed results. Encouraging individuals to participate in the game has shown effectiveness, but convincing them to dedicate two days to playing remains a challenge. Exploration of stable domains from both operator and leadership perspectives is underway to broaden the appeal of defect elimination. The concept of reactive, planned, and precision domains has shown promise, particularly within the maintenance realm. Efforts are ongoing to adapt this concept for operations and leadership, as these groups play a crucial role in disseminating the defect elimination initiative to a larger audience. Any insights on these perspectives would be greatly valued.
Thank you, Winston. I had expected the report to be more readily accessible. As a consultant, I currently do not require benchmarking for my website. However, I am eager to obtain this report as it serves as a key component for establishing effective early performance metrics.
Defect elimination refers to the process of identifying and resolving issues or faults in a product or system to ensure optimal performance and reliability. This practice involves systematically identifying and addressing defects before they can impact quality or customer satisfaction. Defect elimination is a crucial aspect of quality management and continuous improvement initiatives, as it helps prevent costly rework and customer complaints. By proactively addressing defects, organizations can enhance their reputation, increase customer loyalty, and ultimately achieve greater success in the market.
Josh, I may not be able to provide a brief explanation as effectively as other contributors. I suggest initiating a new discussion thread to get a more detailed response. Kim Williams recommends seeking additional insight from others in the community.
Are "zer0-defect" and "zero-breakdown" the same thing?
Answer: - Precision Approach in maintenance focuses on achieving a high level of precision in work to minimize failures, with wear-out failures being the only expected outcome.
Answer: - Maintenance data suggests that a small percentage of industrial equipment reaches the wear-out stage, indicating that preventable human errors are responsible for the majority of mechanical failures.
Answer: - Implementing precision maintenance techniques can help reduce unforeseen failures caused by non-precision maintenance practices, ultimately improving equipment reliability and performance.