- Kevin Cavanaugh, Cheniere, Cameron, LA
- Silviu Diaconu, Tembec Kapuskasing, Kapuskasing, Canada
- Jeremiah Evans, GKN Driveline, Newton, NC
- David Farmer, SPX Transformer Solutions, Goldsboro, NC
- Kenny Hager, GKN Driveline, Newton, NC
“What are your top three contributors to poor reliability?” This questioned was recently asked on the LinkedIn discussion groupReliability Success by Philip Brown. When writing this blog post, 46 comments had been posted in response to Philip's question. There have been some great responses from the international maintenance and reliability community; I wanted to condense the conversation a little and share it. So here it is....
Paula Hollywood from the ARC Advisory Group based her response on a recent survey conducted that revealed poor program execution was the key contributor to poor reliability. Further, lack of commitment, adequate funding, lack of recognized methodologies, and poor training were contributing factors as well
Robert Noble of Hydratight responded; Equipment Designers, competence, and penny-pinching. While Mark Latino, President of Reliability Center Inc. thinks the lack of management systems is a major contributor. Others felt poor management, proper work instructions for PM/PdM’s, substandard data collection to drive improvements, or RCA application.
An Interview with 2009 advanced maintenance and reliability management diplomaGraduate Kevin Conrad, Novozymes Project Execution/Maintenance Manager; Blair, NE.
To evaluate the long term impact of the Advanced MRM Diploma we contact past graduates. We recently spoke with Kevin Conrad. After speaking with Kevin, we felt that his responses were worth sharing with all future diploma students. Kevin summerizes the impact of NC State's and Marshall Institute’s MRM Diploma as, “no matter how mature or in need of improvement your organization is, this diploma will help you attain your goals.”
Rinnette Lowder; Marshall Institute Interviewer (RL): Tell us about your company and yourself.
There are some actions which must be taken at any plant if the maintenance contribution is to be improved. Indeed, some of the recommendations which follow should be implemented even in the absence of any corporate or top management directives! That is, they are well within the span of control and the organizational charter of the maintenance department as it currently exists, and ought to be pursued as a natural consequence of the responsibility and authority vested in the organization already.
There are at least six areas needing improvement that are fundamental to improved management and control of the maintenance function in general:
Peter Drucker, "guru" of modern management, says that the task of a business, any business, is to make resources—labor, material, capital—productive. The work of management, he says, is to manage those resources through planning, organizing, integrating, measuring, and controlling activities appropriate to that purpose.
The most significant deficiency associated with the maintenance process at many plants is a "systemic" one: that is, there are insufficient administrative principles, practices, and procedures currently in place for adequate control of maintenance resources.
This is not usually a question of management competence, ability, or oversight, but simply a lack of management systems with which to do the job.
Maintenance improvement must start with good management processes. Establishing at least the rudiments of good maintenance practices is the foundation of any improvement effort.