Impact of Lean Maintenance
I have observed the impact of ‘lean maintenance’ on everything from rotating machinery to the maintenance organization and the application of lean to the business organization, overall. The original purpose was to streamline processes and eliminate waste in all areas from communication to physical movements. The problem is that the term ‘lean’ has been used not only to trim the fat of organizations and processes, but also to make deep cuts into the muscle of the organization.
The ideas fostered by such programs as lean, RCM and re-engineering were to reduce the focus on unnecessary tasks and to assist with focusing resources. For instance, if you are looking at three different systems: one critical; one redundant; and, one unimportant, these programs started as methods of using set criteria to determine the level of attention for each type of system. Occasionally it would even be determined that the best practice was to let a piece of equipment to ‘run to failure.’
How we graduated from this concept to only a few pieces of equipment would be maintained and the rest run to failure has been a sight to behold! In effect, ignorant abusers of such programs have used the tools as a means to justify degrading their maintenance organization and workplace to one of reactive maintenance. The result has simply been a disservice to their organization and the bottom line.
What we have forgotten is that if a system was unnecessary it wouldn’t be there in the first place. So, technically, if something isn’t worth any notice at all, why not remove it? Well, you say, it isn’t cost effective to perform maintenance, so it was run to failure, but we still need it. Let’s say the item in question is a bathroom fan.
Is the bathroom fan a piece of critical equipment? (OK, I have heard the jokes and comments that you have just considered… ha ha). Let’s look at it from several perspectives: 1) Does it impact the four areas considered in RCM? (Safety, production, regulation or cost); 2) What is the reaction if it fails unexpectedly? Does it get repaired eventually? Immediately? Are complaints generated? 3) Why was it installed in the first place? Basically, is there a cause-effect relationship with the fan? Could it be that there is a regulation for air turnover, or just that such ventilation exists?
Now, let’s add in the headache factor and the real reasons for reduced maintenance. Often the case is related to the wrong maintenance being performed, other times it is a lack of understanding, and, in others, a lack of political will to maintain the maintenance organization. When times get tight, one of the first budgets cut is the maintenance organization. Once times and resources return, the mountain ahead is steep and the resources and effort, even the will, is lacking to move forward. As a result, the use of the maintenance organization to ride through cash-flow and budget shortfalls compound the destruction of the maintenance organization itself.
The roughshod methods referred to as ‘lean,’ various forms of ‘modified RCM,’ and concepts in which they attempt to refer to ‘re-engineering,’ outside of the original concepts, are often used as tools by consultants to make the end user feel better about gutting their maintenance organizations while paying significant fees. While a consultant, I railed against such practices after seeing the results over and over again. But, how do you explain to a prospective client that their ‘baby is ugly?’
Now, I have an organization and facilities in which we are implementing the common sense approaches that I have been preaching for decades. Seeing as we also provide condition-based PM, predictive, corrective and engineering resources for our clients, we also extend this approach and our recommendations for their success.
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
http://twitter.com/motordoc
Come visit the Dreisilker organization at http://www.dreisilker.com!
For questions, please respond to this email or contact me at hpenrose@dreisilker.com.
The ideas fostered by such programs as lean, RCM and re-engineering were to reduce the focus on unnecessary tasks and to assist with focusing resources. For instance, if you are looking at three different systems: one critical; one redundant; and, one unimportant, these programs started as methods of using set criteria to determine the level of attention for each type of system. Occasionally it would even be determined that the best practice was to let a piece of equipment to ‘run to failure.’
How we graduated from this concept to only a few pieces of equipment would be maintained and the rest run to failure has been a sight to behold! In effect, ignorant abusers of such programs have used the tools as a means to justify degrading their maintenance organization and workplace to one of reactive maintenance. The result has simply been a disservice to their organization and the bottom line.
What we have forgotten is that if a system was unnecessary it wouldn’t be there in the first place. So, technically, if something isn’t worth any notice at all, why not remove it? Well, you say, it isn’t cost effective to perform maintenance, so it was run to failure, but we still need it. Let’s say the item in question is a bathroom fan.
Is the bathroom fan a piece of critical equipment? (OK, I have heard the jokes and comments that you have just considered… ha ha). Let’s look at it from several perspectives: 1) Does it impact the four areas considered in RCM? (Safety, production, regulation or cost); 2) What is the reaction if it fails unexpectedly? Does it get repaired eventually? Immediately? Are complaints generated? 3) Why was it installed in the first place? Basically, is there a cause-effect relationship with the fan? Could it be that there is a regulation for air turnover, or just that such ventilation exists?
Now, let’s add in the headache factor and the real reasons for reduced maintenance. Often the case is related to the wrong maintenance being performed, other times it is a lack of understanding, and, in others, a lack of political will to maintain the maintenance organization. When times get tight, one of the first budgets cut is the maintenance organization. Once times and resources return, the mountain ahead is steep and the resources and effort, even the will, is lacking to move forward. As a result, the use of the maintenance organization to ride through cash-flow and budget shortfalls compound the destruction of the maintenance organization itself.
The roughshod methods referred to as ‘lean,’ various forms of ‘modified RCM,’ and concepts in which they attempt to refer to ‘re-engineering,’ outside of the original concepts, are often used as tools by consultants to make the end user feel better about gutting their maintenance organizations while paying significant fees. While a consultant, I railed against such practices after seeing the results over and over again. But, how do you explain to a prospective client that their ‘baby is ugly?’
Now, I have an organization and facilities in which we are implementing the common sense approaches that I have been preaching for decades. Seeing as we also provide condition-based PM, predictive, corrective and engineering resources for our clients, we also extend this approach and our recommendations for their success.
Howard W Penrose, Ph.D., CMRP
http://twitter.com/motordoc
Come visit the Dreisilker organization at http://www.dreisilker.com!
For questions, please respond to this email or contact me at hpenrose@dreisilker.com.
posted by MotorDoc at
7:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home