OMDEC - Optimal Maintenance Decisions Inc.

 

I appreciate receiving your comments on this newsletter and any suggestions for future topics. If there is someone you know who would be interested in receiving this newsletter, please feel free to forward the newsletters to them, or forward their e-mail address to me and I will include them in the distribution of future newsletters. If you wish to remove your name from distribution of this newsletter, please respond via e-mail. Please see “Contact Us” at bottom for e-mail address for feedback, comments and removal from distribution.

This month’s newsletter is from Ben Stevens and is a result of a request I received regarding wanting more articles on CMMS / EAMS systems. Ben has been involved with CMMS / EAMS systems for longer than anyone else I know, and I am sure you will find the article insightful. This is the third of a series of articles that go back to the CMMS / EAMS basics. Ben can be reached at Ben@OMDEC.com.

To keep this newsletter relatively short, this is intended to be a broad overview of issues for physical asset management, rather than a comprehensive discussion of the topic.

So What’s a CMMS/EAM Supposed To Do? Part 3 - Work Approvals

In my last article in October, the subjects were Work Requests and Work Orders. Now we’ll take the next step and explore the world of Work Approvals. Of course each company has its own way of making the approvals process work, so there are many different variations. However we’ll look at three types of approvals:

1. A “simple” work request or work order;

2. A more complex one; and

3. Post-completion work approvals.Simple WR or WO

October’s article outlined the difference between a work request and a work order, and looked at the different configurations of each. For this first example, we will look at a work request for a straightforward, routine job – one which has been done before. Typically this will be, for example:

· An inspection;

· A repeat, time based PM or minor corrective task;

· A repeat, condition-based PM or minor corrective task; or

· A fix for a simple, repeat failure.

In most cases there will already have been a standard work order prepared for the work; in these cases, the work request is converted immediately into a work order and either released for scheduling, or issued directly to the technician. In many cases, companies will be sufficiently familiar with the routine required that a verbal instruction will be given directly to the technician – who then proceeds based upon previous knowledge and experience.

There are several implications behind this procedure that are worth briefly examining:

1. The work really needs to be done – i.e. if it is a time based task, then the proper elapsed time has elapsed; or if it is a condition based task, the proper conditions have occurred; or the data gathered from the inspection provides additional value in the maintenance of the asset;

2. There are no changes in the work or the inspection routine:

3. The priority is shown on the WO (or if no WO, then the technician understands the priority); it can thus be scheduled in without disrupting other work or interfering with operations;

4. The materials required are listed on the work order (or known by the technician), AND the materials are available in stores;

5. There is a simple but effective way of recording the consumption of stores and the return of unused and used stores; and

6. There are no significant safety or environmental issues that require the issuing of a permit or the presence of a safety or environmental officer, no lock-outs or tag-outs.

This long list of assumptions is another way of showing the kinds of things that need to be approved before the work should start. If any of these conditions are absent, then automatic conversion of the WR into a WO, or the automatic release of the WO should not take place.

In practice, the automatic re-issue of WO’s is one of the major contributors to the estimated 70% of PM’s that add no value to the company. Remember that the purpose of a PM is to prevent a failure (Functional Failure or Potential Failure); so first we need to tie the PM to a failure, and then ensure that if the work does not contribute to preventing that failure, the PM is closely examined to see if it can be totally discontinued.A More Complex WO

The rules and the process here are very similar to the “simple” case, but as the cost of the complex WO is higher, then there are additional checks in the system. Before transitioning from a WR to a WO:

· Verify that the work needs to be done;

· Plan out the scope of the work (high level summary);

· Develop a (high level) cost estimate;

· Verify that it is budgeted – or if not, then ensure it is justifiable as an exception; and

· Secure approval to proceed to planning.

Once approval to proceed to planning is in hand, then the detailed plans for the work can go ahead. Most companies have a second round approval process – this comes into play if the planned cost varies from the estimated by more than x%. If it passes this hurdle, then it is scheduled and issued.Post Completion Approval

As the demands on Maintenance for performance AND quality increase, this is an area where many companies are introducing a formal process – especially for the more complex jobs and those that are expensive or repeat jobs. There are too many examples of unexpected outages resulting from (or happening very shortly after) a Maintenance action for this to be ignored. Typically the review will take place at the scene of the crime (oops- sorry, at the scene of the work), with a reliability engineer, safety and environmental officers present as well as the maintenance personnel. Apart from the prime focus – the quality of the work itself – the review should include:

· Were the appropriate sign-offs received;

· Was the correct data collected to later analyse the job;

· Is there more work to be done as a result of the job – if so, do we have enough info to make sure it can be planned and executed effectively;

· If it is a repeat job, has the WO been examined for possible upgrade (of the tasks list, materials etc); is there an effective PM that will prevent its repetition or reduce its frequency; and

· Can the work order be closed.

The profile of Maintenance is slowly rising – as this happens, accountability for adding value is also increasing. These approval processes are becoming more stringent and subject to independent audit. The implications to a company for risk and liability management are obvious…..

Let me know if this was a useful doc – ben@omdec.com. And let me know what else you want us to cover. For my next article, we’ll take a closer look at the impact of the CMMS in the management of inventory. All the best for the New Year.

Upcoming

Please advise me, if there are other topics on maintenance management, project management, or physical asset management issues that would you would find of interest.

Clear Vision Marketing Solutions Limited is organizing a workshop in Jamaica on March 10 to 14, 2008, where I will be presenting “Effective Maintenance Management Practices”. For more information, send e-mail to: clearvision@cwjamaica.com

The Canadian Institute is organizing “Plant Maintenance and Shutdown” conference in Toronto on March 31 to April 1, 2008. I will be presenting “Implementing an Asset Management Strategy for Optimum Life Cycle Cost”. For more information, see: http://www.canadianinstitute.com

Contact Us

To provide feedback on this newsletter, including comments on past articles, ideas for future articles, or to remove your name from distribution of this newsletter, please e-mail me at len@asset-management-solutions.com.

Please feel free to contact us to discuss any of your physical asset management requirements. For more information on how we can help you, please contact me directly. See our web site at: http://www.asset-management-solutions.com for other information on Asset Management Solutions, including asset management issues and solutions.