Hi

Can I know whats the criteria for setup the bad actors defination .Is the cost only contrubute or noumber of failure per year or other thnigs

thanks in advacne

regards,

It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. Are you trying to improve operational reliability? Is your immediate focus on cost or manhours? Is it downtime?

You can identify bad actors for each of these, and work on them till they are eliminated or reduced significantly.

However, if you your approach is on business performance, the risk potential of the events is what matters. For operational events, i.e., those not related to safety or environment,
- maintenance + downtime cost is a good starting point, as it covers operational risk. Be sure to include potential as well as actual costs in your analysis.
For safety related items, do you have a scheme to detect hidden failures? For example, will the fire pump start on demand? Do you test your relief valves, smoke detectors, overspeed trip devices etc. according to a predetermined scheme? All of these affect technical integrity, so they matter. Measure the compliance - do you do the testing and resulting corrective work on these critical itrms on time? You can produce a bad actor analysis on compliance against each of these systems and tackle them as before.

One thing you may find is that work quality is not as good as you expect. Getting this right can solve problems in all areas.

The right order of business is to tackle the safety critical items first, then the production related items. But then, the world does not alwways work this way.

V.Narayan.

thanks Vee for your feed back
Is there time frame during calculating bad actors for Ex 1 year and is there money range for consedering the bad actors as will .Can I say for Ex if the manitiance cost more than 100 K US $ I have to consder it bad actors.

If I have an Eq and that equipment fail 10 times per year but while there is no big impacts from production or maintinacne losess can I conserder it bad actor and what about if we have very critcal eq and that Eq fails one time per year but it effects the production and maintinance can I call it bad actor or just failure .

Is there diifrent between failures and bad actors

Hi (since I dont know your name),

Let me try to address your queries in context. My replies are italised.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alaa:

Is there time frame during calculating bad actors for Ex 1 year Any reasonable time period, enough to give you representative data is OK; 6m-2 years will probably be a workable range
and is there money range for consedering the bad actors as will .Can I say for Ex if the manitiance cost more than 100 K US $ I have to consder it bad actors.The nice thing about bad actor analysis is that it picks YOUR worst performers, so there is no monetary limit. Thus for one firm $100k may be significant, while for another $1k might be important. In both cases, you pick the worst 5 or 10 items.

If I have an Eq and that equipment fail 10 times per year but while there is no big impacts from production or maintinacne losess can I conserder it bad actor and what about if we have very critcal eq and that Eq fails one time per year but it effects the production and maintinance can I call it bad actor or just failure .You only work on failures that hurt you in some way. If the failure does not affect safety etc., and costs you nothing, why not just let it happen? We do bad-actor analysis to identify where to focus our efforts. Surely you wont want to focus on failures that dont matter.

Is there diifrent between failures and bad actorsAsk yourself why you want to do bad-actor analysis. Presumably you want to know how to prioritize your effort to improve. Improve what? Clearly, in a reliability context, you want to minimize failures that hurt you in some way ($$$, injury etc.). In a different context, e.g., if you are an accountant, delays in recievables or payments may be what you want to 'bad-actor' analyze.

---

In my earlier post, I explained that you do this analysis on whatever you want to improve, be it reliability, costs, downtime, number of failures or whatever you set as your objective. Only you can set the objectives. Regards.

V. Narayan.

thanks for your feed back and wish u happay new year

regards,

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RCM2,

What is your view if I say that over a long term, pump failures can become chronic in terms of dollars compared to a one0time big fire incident whose cost can be annualized? So should we focus on the pump failures as bad actor to tackle first? TQ

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
What is your view if I say that over a long term, pump failures can become chronic in terms of dollars compared to a one0time big fire incident whose cost can be annualized? So should we focus on the pump failures as bad actor to tackle first? TQ

Dear Josh,

If you use a risk matrix, a number of similar frequent failures and a single big bang can be compared quite easily. Similarly if you rank order annualized costs, both groups will show up at the right rankings. The problem arises if you DONT annualize; this is not common practice, and only the more sophisticated analyst (like you!) seems to appreciate the value of annualizing.

So both methods will yield correct results.

V.Narayan.

Is the risk matrix included in your book? Need to further check on this matter. TQ

Dear Josh,

No, the rsik matrix is not covered in my book, but will probably be included in my next book, which is under consideration.

However, I will cover the risk matrix in my workshop on "Value Added Maintenance: Lowering Cost, Increasing Profits" on 15-16th June in Kuala Lumpur. Details are not yet finalised, but if you are interested, please write to me directly. Regards.

V.Narayan.

Dear Alaa,

I would strongly recommend not getting caught up in the "bad actors" poor performance cycles. In 15 years working with reliability improvement programs I have yet to meet a company who does not know where there problems lie. (They are not always correct, but at least they have an opinion of where to start)

Waiting for something to begin to perform badly is the essence of reactive management and is not how asset management will need to be managed int he future.

It is provaby beneficial to attack machine maintenance in a proactive manner, that is to say, in a manner that anticipates failures and develops a means of managing these.


Regards

Daryl Mather

www.strategic-advantages.com

Daryl,

I get the impression you are suggesting that bad-actor analysis is unnecessary or wrong. Does this in your view, apply to Companies who are facing a wide range of reliability problems, some chronic and others which are infrequent but big on $$$? Are you suggesting that they not consider doing RCAs which are reactive and do instead, RCMs which are proactive? Is proactive automatically better than reactive? Is preventive maintenance automatically better than breakdown maintenance? The latter is reactive, so do you consider it unacceptable? Clearly you are not of this view, as you stated wrt standby situation. But you appear to disagree with reactive actions per se.

I think it will be easier for readers to follow an explanation of why you recommend what you do, so please help us here. Regards.

V.Narayan.

Dear Vee,

Thanks for this, appreciate the manner that you wrote that. You are a gentleman.

I think that the whole "bad actors" focus is a misrepresentation of the power of probabalistic risk analysis and is a tool, very succesfully used by some, for commercial consulting reasons. (Rather than as a true addition of value to their clients)

Dont take from this any slight on yourself at all please.

When a corporation considers reliability improvement they are not always in a poor state of performance currently. Many corporations are becoming truly proactive in their management of their physical asset base. However, this is not always the case.

So, in beginning their is obviously the need to establish an understanding of where to start, and what should be used to attack these problems.
h
This is a process that should take about 2 hours at the maximum. Even with the largest and most capital intensive industries, and I have worked with some of the biggest, I have still yet to meet an asset management director who does not know where his/her greatest point of pain is.

Deciding to take action, based on poor performance, does not take a full blown and often expensive analysis to justify the decision tot ake action. It takes action! (Or things wont change) Surely this is common sense.

quote:

Are you suggesting that they not consider doing RCAs which are reactive and do instead, RCMs which are proactive?

No, definitely not. There is a need to be pragmatic. If a company is applying reliability initiatives in response to an issue that has already surfaced, then I see it as a point of practicality that they apply some form of problem resolution technique. I would suggest that RCA, which is reactive, could be applied in these cases. However, I would also suggest that in some cases you could apply RCM. (Which when applied in response to an existing condition could also be described as a reactive measure)

quote:

Is proactive automatically better than reactive?

Yes, undoubtably. This is the fundamental change that I personally have seen in large scale corporations during the last ten years. That is, a drive to manage the physical asset base in a manner that identifies and deals with issues prior to them becoming performance problems of some sort. This is at the base of what I propose and of what I am suggesting.

quote:

Is preventive maintenance automatically better than breakdown maintenance? The latter is reactive, so do you consider it unacceptable?

Of course not and I know we dont need to get into this conversation here. Statements such as "higher levels of maintenance mean greater availability" or "higher routine maintenance costs mean reduced risk" are from the 1960's and part of the cause of problems in most companies where this anachronistic view still persists.

In summary: I would suggest that a full scale "bad actors" or criticality analysis is rarely if ever required. What is more I would suggest that it is an extremely inefficient form of determining risk of the asset base. (Which is another issue entirely) Most organizations know when they have reliability problems and they also know where those problems are generally. If there is a need for some form of sequencing or prioritization this is a rapid process, not one that needs a full blown analytical procedure behind it.

However, as alluded to previously. Any form of prioritization is only a means to get a reliability program started. To recommend that any approach should include, as a full scale permanent process, a focus on waiting for problems to occur prior to attemtping to solve them. Is irresponsible, dangerous and unethical. This is particularly the case when you look at the strategic benefits available from modern reliability methods, as well as the dangers approaching from corporate killing law changes throughout the world.

The recommendation, which is becoming the norm in large scale capital intensive organizations, is to manage the asset base on a fully proactive means in order to ensure maximum reliability at the minimal price.

My 2 c

Daryl Mather
www.strategic-advantages.com