On Reliability, Theory of Constraints, and Cliff Notes

At first I was going to discuss just an issue in one area until I started noticing a growing number of consultants and vendors who had never been on board with energy and reliability and different business aspects presenting themselves as ‘experts.’ However, in almost every case they are still trying to work their way through things and are in such a rush to get information out as part of marketing and sales that they barely read the Cliff Notes on each subject. So, I will start with my original topic and continue through the rest. BTW: Areas where we have been experienced and working for two decades – yep, leading the way again. Funny how some of these same people said that these areas were nonsense only a few years ago.

Many R&M consultants have been quoting the Theory of Constraints (TOC) and Eliyahu Goldratt as methods of improving the R&M process. However, as in many cases of misinformed sales and marketing will often immediately include the buzz concepts of ‘culture change’ and ‘KPI’ (Key Performance Indicators). Oh, of course we cannot forget the ‘balanced scorecard.’ For anyone actually versed in the TOC they would immediately realize that TOC and each of the other topics are mutually exclusive. In effect, somebody read the Cliff Notes and is trying to pass off a simple concept and then destroy the meaning off-handedly.

Let’s take the concept of KPIs. The idea is to set up a series of measureable values that are, effectively, local efficiencies. The very first lesson within ‘The Goal,’ by Eliyahu Goldratt, a business novel, is the elimination of local efficiencies and, instead, a view of effectiveness as well as a system view (process view). The same statement can be made for the concept of ‘wrench time.’

By focusing on local efficiencies and wrench time we are setting goals and criteria that tend to drive us to perform wrong actions and short cuts to meet wrong goals. This happens frequently as well as how the scores of the KPIs are determined and adjusted to meet reality. The effect is that instead of maintenance improvements we end up with reliability accounting games. In one case I was given a ridiculously high value for scheduled versus unscheduled work. When I looked closely at it the program was set up in such a way that if any item was scheduled to be done in the next shift, or later, it was considered scheduled maintenance. The result was that equipment failures, including critical systems, were often delayed to keep the score up – but at what impact to the plant throughput and profitability? My observations onsite gave me enough site experience to guess that the actual percentage should have been 2/3rds of what was actually reported.

Don’t scoff, I bet I would be able to find similar issues in your own plant.

Now, let’s consider the idea of culture change. Every single program offered by consultants I have run into recently includes the concept of ‘culture change.’ This is supposed to be a serious concept presented as part of turning a business around. Yet, it is supposedly something we must do with every single program brought forward by the latest fad consulting process. It is disheartening to see the damage that some of these programs have done to companies without any results. I am not sure why people still flock to these things.

In virtually every instance, the problem I have found is that the companies I work with have reasonably good cultures and that what is really needed is awareness. There is a huge difference between the two. In the first case you are saying that your company is sick and requires a severe change that can take years – if there is a claim that it will take under a year at even a small company, then it is not culture change. However, if the company requires an awareness, that is different. Most of the time when we are involved in the rollout of a program we watch the lights come on as management and workers realize the benefits of the best practices and programs/methods. They were just not aware as many of the programs are counter-intuitive to trained experience.

Awareness begets acceptance. Acceptance begets sustainable change. Sustainable change begets further improvements. Few times do I find managers or workers who do not change a process once the logic, awareness, and evidence shows the right way is actually easier and common sense.

In fact, that is one of the premises behind the TOC.

You will find a more in-depth treatise on the application of TOC for business and its relationship to reliability programs in the article “Theory of Constraints for RME&E” in the May 14, 2009 eMag.

In the meantime, yep, we led the way again. For over two decades I have been a proponent of the concept of Reliability, Maintenance, Energy and Reliability (RME&E, or Green Maintenance) and the inter-relationship of each component. I was pretty much constantly told that the relationships weren’t important by a number of people in the consulting business. On the other hand, many of my customers or clients were interested because they understood the relationship that energy costs are a direct line to profitability.

There are others in the industry who have similar concepts and ideas. For instance, at the MARTS conference in April and at the MainTrain conference in Toronto, Ontario in November, 2009, Ken Bannister and I did and will be talking on the subject. It has been fun discussing direct and real experiences, with measurements, not theoretical information or ideas that have already been put forth by others.

Sorry folks, but one of the things that is really bothering me about certain areas within our industry is the lack of new ideas. However, we do not lack in taking solid programs and ideas and watering them down until the original valid concept is useless – or the combination of ideas that make no sense. Just like all the flavors of RCM that exist, at this point.

I have been military-certified in RCM, yet I do not dare use the term anymore. There are far too many in the industry that have misused the term to the point where too many companies hear it and abandon the concept being presented. Usually because they have been burned from some short or long-cut ‘RCM – wannabe’ process that cost a lot of money but the findings could not be implemented. In one case, a consultant bragged about a company where they had applied their ‘brand’ (flavor) of RCM while the company executives put out orders that the term ‘RCM’ was to never be used within the organization again.

Not sure what it is, but I sure have been shaking my head when it comes to our industry more and more every day. Perhaps we could use some of that ‘culture change’ … I mean, common sense. Folks, if you are constantly being told to tear everything down to apply some new concept, then you need to get back to basics.

After all, as I have been saying more and more lately, we are not even following basic standards in the industry anymore – and as standards are industry best practices, how can we take on new stuff without a firm foundation? I have saved my clients more in hanging fruit opportunities by just starting with the basics before applying anything more advanced. It keeps your house from crumbling.

I suppose I could make prettier presentation slides to get the real experience across. But that is OK. I have to limit myself on the trade shows and conferences this year. A list of the talks and presentations that we are participating in will be found in the next eMag edition of the Motor Diagnostics and Motor Health News.

But then again, we have already been doing what everyone else just talks about.