When it come to your automobile:

1) Who is the Asset Owner?

2) Who is the Operator?

3) Who performs Maintenance?

4) Who is the OEM?

5) Who develops the maintenance plan?

6) Who is responsible for the maintenance plan?

7) Who is responsible for safety?

8) Who is responsible for reliability?

9) Who is responsible for availablity?

10) Who benefits most from effective Life cycle asset management?

Terry O

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Terrence O'Hanlon,

All stakeholders are responsible for reliability in particular and asset management in general.

But there must be a focal point to lead and coordinate all the reliability aspects and parties involved. The focal point could be maintenance dept or dedicated reliability engineer if appointed etc.

Ultimately the plant manager or the company with its shareholders will benefit from effective lifecycle asset management.

Terry,
Great set of questions. Let me take a stab at it, answers embedded in italics.

quote:

for my automobile:

1) Who is the Asset Owner? I am, nobody else!
2) Who is the Operator? I am and anybody else I authorize

3) Who performs Maintenance? Simple tasks like cleaning, lub, air, radiator water top up - myself; for the rest the garage mechanic

4) Who is the OEM? The auto maker

5) Who develops the maintenance plan? Unfortunately, the OEM!

6) Who is responsible for the maintenance plan? I should be, but pass the buck to the OEM and garage mechanic!

7) Who is responsible for safety? Again, I or the driver should be, but pass on the responsibility at least partly to the garage mechanic.

8) Who is responsible for reliability? This is beginning to sound like a confessional!

9) Who is responsible for availablity? Certainly not my wife!

10) Who benefits most for effective Life cycle asset management?

Me, me, me, but guess what, I can just blame the OEM for a lousy Friday afternoon auto when it suits me!

My first thought is exactly what Vee mentioned. A confessional it usually sounds like.

The problem with the answers is that everyone that looks in on the situation has a different perspective, and then either fingerpointing is involved, and then emotions, and well, you know the situation that ensues from there.

So, it is my contention that in answer to the question "Who is responsible for reliability?" is that everyone is. Here's why:

Without operations to run the equipment, Maintenance would not be needed (but according to SKF's solid oil bearing sales sheet, Maintenance is not needed at all! :-) Click here to find out - last paragraph, last sentence)

Without Maintenance, operations could not run reliably.

Without the OEM, you would not have the equipment to run.

Without the OEM maintenance guidelines, most would not know where to start to maintain equipment. Their recommendations are a good place to start.

Without everyone working safely, someone would get hurt.

The asset owner is everyone. The one who runs, and the one who maintains. If one of those "owners" failed to perform their job, would the asset fail to produce it's intended design purpose?

Asset availability is everyone's job. (see point above)

Who performs maintenance? In the real world, it typically is just Maintenance. We know now that Asset Basic Care (or whatever term you like to use) by Operations is essential for optimum reliability.

Everyone benefits from effective Life cycle asset management. There is no "most" in reference to this statement. We all benefit because we all get to keep our jobs and keep the mill/plant running.

As you can see, with any decision made by anyone in any one of these positions effects each and every aspect of the operation (Maintenance or Operations). If the Plant Manager makes a decision to change something on the equipment, everyone in that equipment's area of influence is effected. And there are ripple effects out from that.

Another question: "How many times have you seen a decision made by someone somewhere in your organization that only effected them?" Be truthful when you answer. The statement has been made in the past that each decision we make effects over 200 people. I would say more than 200 depending on the size of your plant or mill. Whether Maintenance or Operation or Management. All people and levels of the organization effect the overall plant/mill.

James Fajcz, P.E., CMRP
Reliability Engineer

James,

quote:

"Who is responsible for reliability?" is that everyone is.

I like the reasoning, but am of the view that when everyone is responsible nobody is! So while at each stage of the process somebody is responsible, and over the life cycle, many people are responsible for some bits of it, I am of the view that the asset owner is the only person who is accountable. He or she may delegate the elements to others but remains accountable for the whole lot.

quote:

Originally posted by Vee:
James,
I like the reasoning, but am of the view that when everyone is responsible nobody is!

Vee: Yes. With that definition, I agree. I just didn't go far enough. When I say everyone is responsible, I mean the following:

Just like safety being everyone's responsibility, we need the same effort in Reliability.

You don't see people saying no one is responsible for safety when someone gets hurt. You tend to look at the things people did, decisions they made just prior to getting hurt. We all know that I am responsible for my own safety.

We in industry need the same focus on Reliability as safety. Teach and preach that Reliability is each and everyone's responsibility. This I call ownership. You own your own safety, and we need the same for Reliability.

The Reliability of a plant MUST be driven from the top of the food chain. If the Mill/Plant Manager demands it, then it will happen. We all know that safety is the first item we discuss in every meeting. The next point should be Reliability, and in a sense it is. People sometimes talk all around reliability but don't realize it. They are concerned with outages, downtime, production levels, failures, etc. All are related to Reliability.

So, we need to have every person understand that each decision they make effects reliability in a positive or negative direction. This is of course, true but to get that knowledge down to those that operate or maintain, and up to the leadership is difficult because we as Reliability folks, are stuck somewhere in the middle. A reliability program that is driven from the middle or lower levels will have limited success.

Does that make more sense? Of course, I'm living in a dream world if I think this will happen anytime soon. I think American (maybe other countries) industry will fail before upper corporate top brass understand it and drive it through their organizations. Maybe I'm wrong? I hope I am.

James Fajcz, P.E., CMRP
Reliability Engineer

James,
Spot on! Clearly you are passionate about reliability. We need many more of you. Let us support the drive for cloning!

james,

Like the point "Just like safety". Spot on.

I am of the mind that when we get things right the asset management department shouldn't exist, it should just be part of day-to-day activities as safety is.

Best regards,

Isn't my mechanic responsible for reliability?

Terry O

He is responsible for the job he does and for the impact it has on the reliability. Reliability has many players involved, everyone has a share of the responsibility; one of them may have the ultimate responsibility.

Terrence, I would like to know what you think since you started this thread. Or maybe comment on those that have answered here. I am interested...

quote:

10) Who benefits most from effective Life cycle asset management?

The Asset owner does. (read: private planes, yatchs, mansions etc...) In terms of you car - you can drive a reliable vehicle longer and delay future capital investment.

Yes - if you the maintainer do a good job - you get to keep your job - but soon - maintainers who know how to do a good job will be huge demand (skills shortage) - so that will not be enough reward.

Asset owners who refuse to adopt best practices will see maintenance professionals choosing other opportunities (they will be plentiful).

Since maintainers have traditionally had a hard time putting maintenance into the context of business - economics and shortage of qualified personnel will soon bridge that gap. Business leaders that figure this out early will capture the best and brightest people and late adopters will experience magnified problems retaining qualified people.

Why should I bet my families future on an asset owner with poor maintenance support when this leads to high cost - low volume producer status - eventually leading to acquisition or bankruptcy. I will simply be chattel at that point.

Is this view drastic - maybe - but I see it coming.

Would love to hear your view.

Terry O

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Terrence O'Hanlon,

quote:

9) Who is responsible for availability?

The Operator and the Asset Owner. Again - in terms of your car, you must decide how much availablity you want. You must operate your vehicle responsibly. You must schedule time with maintainer.

MTBF "is what it is" and availability will be a function of inspection and detection regimens. Asset owner must set availability goal/standard and operator must operate responsibly and make the system available for the amount of inspection and detection required to meet availability goals.

Once that is set - Maintainer has responsibility meet the inspection and detection requirements.

Will cover 8-1 later.

Comments?

Terry O

quote:

8) Who is responsible for reliability?

Sure - that sounds great - everyone is responsible for reliability. That would make a great banner to place on the plant floor!

When me as the Asset Owner and the Operator in the case of my car - is sitting out in the middle of the desert on Route 66 with my water pump V Belt broken and my radiator steaming and boiling over because I failed to meet scheduled maintenance or pre-trip inspection - it seems like my maintainer has a very limited role in reliability. Can I seriously be disappointed in my maintainer?

Is there a theme developing here?

Please bang away at my thoughts as I am doing my best to formulate them in a logical way and I would appreciate any challenges.

Terry O

quote:

7) Who is responsible for safety?

OK - here I will agree - everyone is responsible. I could provide a dissertation here but unlike reliability- everyone is already well versed in safety - because asset owners insist that this be the case.

Get it - boss said it will happen - boss supports it happening even when it it is not easy - so guess what - it happens!

Terry O

Well, gee. I asked for it didn't I?

Thanks Terrence. Your input is valuable.

Again, when I say everyone is responsible for reliability, it doesn't mean that give all employees reliability training, leave it at that and whatever comes of it, it will be a success. This is not what I meant.

What I did mean is that when you incorporate a culture of reliability into each and every worker (Salaried or Hourly), they have a better decision making thought process. Also, being driven from the top down, it will be a success.

If I as a maintenance mechanic realized that when I adjusted a belt to get rid of the squealing effected the bearing load on the motor, thus causing reduced life of the motor bearing, thus resulting in having to change the motor, and extra cost for rebuild if possible, or replacement, and causing unplanned downtime, etc... Then I would make different decisions for the reliability of that asset.

Now, we could get into a discussion of how the Maintenance and Operations department is run, how they should be watching/supervising, etc. of their crews. This also gets into having a proper job responsibility description. If I did not tell the maintenance mechanic that he would be given his raises based on the reliability of the assets he maintains, how would he develop the ownership to maintain the asset?

It is my contention that in order to develop ownership in any Maintenance department, you require all of these components:
[1]Responsibility of an area or dept. or some physical asset base. This gives the individual the "playing field" where he does his work. A great place to start. Also a clear description of what his job is (not a day to day task summary, he knows what to do with his knowledge, experience, training, etc.)
[2]Accountability of the performance of that area. The individual will perform well if he knows he will be reviewed. Remember cramming for those finals in College/University? You were responsible, and would be held accountable if you failed, right?
[3]Tools. The individual cannot perform his job to the best of his ability without tools, of course proper appropriate tools. You can't most accurately predict failure anymore with a screwdriver to the ear, or even 10 year old software for PdM Vibe Techs. I love woodworking, and I know even from that difference in medium worked on that if you don't have the right tools, you will make shabby furniture.
[4]Time. The individual also needs the correct amount of time to maintain the piece of equipment. If he is rushed because production is determined to get their asset running again, then how is it his fault? I don't see enough of Maintenance Managers pushing for proper maintenance. They take the lumps production gives them because of their position. Maintenance most typically has to be on the defensive. Maybe not in all industries, but quite a few.

And, of course this is not a total list. There's training, team building exercises, knowledge of the plant/mill's goals and how each person's job effects those goals, and many others.

With whatever area I represent either maintenance, operations, management, shift supervisor, tour foreman, mtce supervisor, planner, everything I do effects reliability.

I hope that makes it clearer when I say it is everyone's responsibility.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: James F.,

James -

First, I hope my being so direct is not disrespectful. Postings are hard to nuance - unlike verbal conversation (read: Shane - "you had better smile when you say that"!) I am smiling as I write these posts in a most respectful way. I am attempting to ignite a discussion to illuminate some recent thoughts I have had and this feedback helps me organize. I am inviting challenges.

Second - I agree that everyone in the chain should hold responsibility for reliability.

The gap in our conversation comes from who has empowerment or custodial possession.

I take responsibility for World Hunger however my actions - will do very little to affect hungry people today. More to your point - if the every person in the world took responsibility for world hunger - it would be solved.

The custodial (ownership) authority (government) has more to do with daily world hunger conditions that I do. They have more power to sustain or eliminate the problem.

(Sorry for the drama)

My position: The Asset Owner sets the paradigm for reliability (even if he/she/they do not know that) and maintainers simply respond as best they can within the confines of that paradigm.

You postings on how to achieve reliability where you can have affect is great. Keywords are "where you can have affect".

Again: My position is that Asset Owners, Designers and Operators affect 70%-90% of the things that affect reliability.

Add in the 10%-30% potential affect from maintainers and yes - you need a total partnership to be reliable.

Make sense?

Terry O

Terrence O'Hanlon wrote:

quote:

First, I hope my being so direct is not disrespectful. Postings are hard to nuance - unlike verbal conversation

Yes. Me, too! Now you know the reason smiley icons were invented !

I love dialogue. Dramatic dialogue gets the point across, so your examples are what is needed to have an understanding of the concepts.

What I've written is but a portion of industry, and not meant to be an end all of the scope of al of industry. Again, what we are exposed to is what we are most familiar with. Some of this is also what I've learned.

Thanks.

Terry, James and others,
In his Theory of Constraints, Eli Goldrattt explains his 'chain' model, where every link in the chain matters. I believe that Safety and Reliability follow this model. Every link, i.e., every contributor, be it the designer, operator, maintainer, vendor or asset owner matters in achieving high reliability. Thus every player is responsible.

However, the buck stops with the Asset Owner, i.e. he/she alone is accountable.

Taylor (Scientific Management) followed by Henry Ford started the salami-slicing approach to management. Toyota showed us that this does not work today. Most people accept that a holistic approach is more appropriate and brings sustainable results. Rather than just defining roles and responsibilities, I prefer the goal-setting approach. getting people to point in the right direction, ensuring they have the training and motivation, and rewarding them fairly. These are jobs for the Asset Owner. After Piper Alpha, the UK Safety Regulations were changed to a goal setting regime, and I believe that was the right way.

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

This is one of the best threads I have read in a long time great discussion. Thanks Mike