I have worked in the condition monitoring / reliability field for several years. In that time I have noticed drastic changes in my surroundings. The tools are getting better, smarter, and easier to afford. However, the skills required to properly use these tools are not progressing. In fact I see a major trend in the other direction. Most of the time tools such as vibration analysis were seen as a necessary evil by the people I have worked for. Now it appears that companies are questioning that necessity. I see a big push towards operator performed inspections. There are several arguments that support this. Operator performed inspections work well in facilities where most equipment is spared. Operators also see the equipment more frequently and have a hands-on approach. As a result vibration analyzers are being replaced with vibration pens. Spectral data collection is being replaced with daily meter logs. Now the only time a vibration specialist is being called is when a real problem arises. According to some comparative reports, the lack of adverse affects on availability tends to support this trend. My view is limited to a very narrow slice of the industrial community, but I see this often. Even if this approach was not being use it has been being seriously kicked around and I feel the only reason it had not been initiated was the lack of performance indicators to justify the switch. So what does the future look like for the skilled technician? Is the just a cycle, a valid response to new tools and technology, or a localized paradigm shift seen from my limited prospective?

It's called progress.

The move from relay logic to PLCs could also be considered to be a move away from skilled labour in this context. Tools improve with progress.

I think that skilled labor is trending away, there aren't too many people like you around any more Waylon, and as a result companies are looking at other solutions.

I think online monitoring, and automated data analysis is the next step. It it about to the price point and product quality where it can be justified.

It seems there are a lot of changes in our field:

-instrumentation is moving toward perm. monitoring. But I don't think it's completely because it is so much better. I believe some of it is driven by the manufacturers, so they can sell us new stuff. I also believe it is driven by controls-oriented people, because some of them look at is as another process parameter, which it is to an extent. However, when a vibration alarm goes off, it is no longer a process parameter, it is a problem - one which cannot always be determined by smart systems, but by smart people.

-the vibration monitoring equipment I use ( portable data collectors for the most part ) has improved some, but the "big 3" no longer put many resources toward continued improvement. It seems to me that they have resigned themselves to the permanent monitoring concept as well. It also seems to me that the big conglomerates want to sell use the motor, install their systems on it, monitor it for us, tell us when to change it, and sell us the new motor, thereby making as much money as they can from the companies. There are new players making portable instruments, but I don't know much about them.

-Manufacturing is going out of the traditional industrialized countries, for cheaper labor. Some of that is our fault as well. Ever higher wages and benefits have their costs, as well as continually raising stock dividends and executive pay.

-Younger workers don't seem to be interested in being skilled craftspeople.

As depressing as it all sounds, I think there will always be a demand for people in our field, but the days of being a reliability analyst with clean hands is over. Where I work, we have been successful by being the ones who find problems, and repair them oursleves. We have utilized all of the different predictive technologies available, and continue to find new uses for the equipment and expertise.

While manufacturing may be on the decline, we will always have power generation, HVAC, public and private utilities, shipping, and so on. I suspect that there will be a demand for reliability in these fields.

At least, I hope so...

Actually, there has been a trend away from skilled labor for over two centuries. In 1824, John Hall, Chief Engineer of Harpers Ferry armory, developed a method of manufacturing muskets with inter-changeable components. In 1828, large scale manufacturing of muskets using specialized machine tools and, primarily, lesser skilled machinists. This marked a specific divergence of the requirement for skilled and unskilled labor, reducing costs for the development of weapons coupled with the ability to provide replacement parts. The workforce was split between the unskilled workforce that operated the machines and a skilled workforce who maintained, repaired, setup and built the machines used by the laborers.

As the success became known, between 1860 and 1885 McCormick of Chicago increased its production of reapers, mowers, binders and other agricultural implements from 4000 units per year to 49,000. Between 1856 and 1885, Singer's annual production of sewing machines increased from 2500 per year to 500,000 per year. Other companies, worldwide, began to follow these examples which resulted in worker panic and sabotage (sabot comes from the wooden shoes that were used to damage automated machinery).

In 1878, Frederick Taylor began his work in developing a process that he published in 1911, known as scientific management. This involved measurements, timing and division of tasks supported by monetary rewards for work. These concepts were adopted by Henry Ford at his Highland Park plant in 1913. This reduced the time to manufacture an automobile from 12.5 hours to just under 93 minutes each.

Through most all of this, maintenance and reliability remained primarily the same skilled workforce that it always had.

Skipping forward a bit, the concept of the professional manager only came about in the 1960's with the wide acceptance of the MBA. At this time, the first major work on R&M occurred, other than general acceptance of the bathtub curve of reliability. This practice was the development of Reliability-Centered Maintenance and its FAA predecessors.

You see, machines were becoming more complex, but we, as creatures of habit, continued maintaining machines the way we always had - periodic maintenance and replacement. However, the costs were tremendous, especially at the dawn of modern automation and as we entered the computer age.

.... to be continued ...

OK, now let us get into the 1980's (great music, etc.):

In 1983, a consultant by the name of Goldratt published 'The Goal' that outlined his Theory of Constraints (TOC). TOC identified several principles for making a company competitive:

1. Reduce inventory;
2. Improve throughput; and,
3. Reduce operating costs

At the time, companies were rather inefficient with both labor and management. He saw, and states, that if you claim that you have reduced operating costs it must have also removed labor. In effect, the times had a great deal of labor built into each product that was manufactured so it was effective to reduce costs in that area. Now, we are kind of harping on overly-lean companies that are still trying to follow that principle.

But I digress.

Changes to technology for the R&M industry are a blessing. About d---ed time, I say. You have modern, high speed, manufacturing equipment and maintenance staff with the same old equipment they always had trying to keep up. Very inefficient. Then, you have highly skilled R&M staff running around with data collection equipment, performing greasing and other basic tasks that do not require a lot of skill.

Shouldn't those be pushed back from the skilled R&M workforce and have the R&M folks become knowledge workers? Basically, shouldn't a highly trained analyst be used as an internal consultant to identify issues and troubleshoot advanced problems instead of being dragged into every little detail of daily maintenance? Unless, of course, you have large gangs of skilled R&M labor and need to have something for them to do.

In each case that I have gone into any company over the past two decades, I have never heard the complaint that 'we have too much time on our hands.' Instead, I have seen major problems persist because the specialists cannot devote time to find the root of a problem as they are pulled off to collect data, put out the next fire, etc. In fact, the victim in these cases is the pro-active maintenance programs.

Long story short is that we are observing an evolution in our industry. In the future there will be some variation on three levels of worker:

1. Laborer - performs basic tasks;
2. Skilled laborer - Knows a specific trade;
3. Knowledge worker - the go to person for all things maintenance.


Technology and the ease of use of technology is an important step in getting there. Pushing basic tasks away from the knowledge worker should be a goal, not a problem.

At least, that is my opinion.

Sincerely,
Howard

Waylon, I think Howards opnion is right on.

1. Laborer - performs basic tasks;
2. Skilled laborer - Knows a specific trade;
3. Knowledge worker - the go to person for all things maintenance.


Technology and the ease of use of technology is an important step in getting there. Pushing basic tasks away from the knowledge worker should be a goal, not a problem.

I work for a large Oil Company and we struggle with Reliability every day. I am a Rotating equipment Technician/Vibration data collector, Vibration analyst, Motor testing cordinator, repiar cordinator, and about 10 other things. It all depends on what is the hottest issue as to what I am having to work on sometimes. But because of my location I beleive that I am more proactive than reactive.

If we could utilize the newer Technology such as Remote vibration Spectrum and Waveform data logging, I could see where it would save so much time that we do not have right now to truly analyze the equipment we are have problems with and to correct them. Instead of spending hours behind a windshield to get to a pump station just to find out the equipment cannot be ran.

Another thing technology would do is free up a Knowledge person to train the workers on the proper skills to maintain and work on the equipment Correctly. To Me Relaibility is not rocket Science and I personally do not feel thretened by Technology advances that can help me re-direct what I am working on.

To me at my Company we do not spend enough time analyzing our Failures and what is causing them. such as vendor problems, improper commisioning, improper operation which is leading to failures. If Technology could help us spend more time doing this that I am all for it.
Alan