In the past (and present) getting the millwrights to provide 'useful' history in the CMMS was a tremendous effort. We were getting info such as 'replaced mechanical seal' as history. We provided the list below of what we feel constitutes good quality history where required (not all jobs would require the complete list to be answered). The reporting has improved, but still needs work. The next step we took was to provide the following 9 steps in a template type form so they were prompted to answer all of the questions. Our CMMS is not configured to accept a template in the work history section and a copy and paste from a word document produces a cluttered history. I am curious on what other companies are doing and looking for info on.....

>what constitutes useful or adequate history
>where it is stored
>getting the millwrights on board so it is part of the job to provide history
>comments on our 9 step history requirements below.


1. INITIAL COMPLAINT
2. AS FOUND DEFICIENCIES
3. PARTS REPLACED, MODIFIED OR ADJUSTED
4. AS LEFT CONDITION (DEFICIENCIES CORRECTED)
5. DEVIATION FROM SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE IF DATA/SPEC SHEET FILLED OUT AND IF THE SJP WAS UPDATED.
6. POSSIBLE ROOT CAUSE OF FAILURE (PROCESS, MAINT, DESIGN, END OF LIFE)
7. RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPROVEMENT
8. PM FREQUENCY CHANGE REQUIRED (YES/NO AND WHY)
9. TECHNICIAN(S) WORKED ON THE JOB

Thanks

Rick

From my experience the perception from millwrights is that if they identified themselves on a document, that it could bite them later.

Mike.

Heck, millwrights as data entry clerks. Ok, there are some workarounds. Get production involved by filling out a work order or such with the initial complaint and/or any other information. I have seen many use the operator to write down such information, part numbers, time and so on. One of the advantages of this is that it prevents the operator from magically disappearing and the operators tend to be more careful knowing they can’t sneak off like that. Save the old parts as this is a better description of what went wrong and root cause analysis then what can be written, no lengthy reports from the millwrights needed. Old broken parts can also be used as an argument for more PM time. Slapping a greasy part in the hand of someone with a white shirt, well they tend to be infuriated at first but they tend to understand the concept better. One more is make sure they understand all the reward for entering all this information. For example put together a repair kit for a known problem instead having someone hunt down the parts that are typically scattered. I have seen the time required to make repairs cut in half or more by making repair kits, all because someone correctly entered the information. I know first hand after “fire fighting” all shift the last thing anyone wants to do is enter data so make allowances.

One of the main reasons for recording history is for future maintenance. If a failure occurs and quality history was entered on the last breakdown, it will be very useful to know exactly what was found, the root cause and what was done to correct the failure from occuring again. I feel that having the millwrights involved with root cause, taking/recording dimensional checks, updating job plans and recommending improvements keeps them from becoming just 'parts changers.'

Rick

quote:

1. INITIAL COMPLAINT
2. AS FOUND DEFICIENCIES
3. PARTS REPLACED, MODIFIED OR ADJUSTED
4. AS LEFT CONDITION (DEFICIENCIES CORRECTED)
5. DEVIATION FROM SPECIFICATIONS. INDICATE IF DATA/SPEC SHEET FILLED OUT AND IF THE SJP WAS UPDATED.
6. POSSIBLE ROOT CAUSE OF FAILURE (PROCESS, MAINT, DESIGN, END OF LIFE)
7. RECOMMENDATION FOR IMPROVEMENT
8. PM FREQUENCY CHANGE REQUIRED (YES/NO AND WHY)
9. TECHNICIAN(S) WORKED ON THE JOB

A good CMMS will capture all these infos and you can have a minimum mandatory data entry in CMMS.

In my opinion you want to keep it as simple as possible (KISS principles) to what you demand from the trades in reporting. This is because trades often prefer to fix the problem and do less paperwork as it is seen as a "waste of time".

Typically getting them to select the cause of failure (from a consice list of failure codes specific to the equipment - do not generalise these) should be enough to start to commence improvement.

The trick here is to ensure that these are published in the lunchroom in pareto chart formats with # of occurences or downtime or cost so people can see where this data is going and what the issues are. Next step is to involve the trades in RCA in solving the top contributors and speaking regulrarly at toolbox meetings about these and any common fixes that may be possible. Get people thinking improvement and ensure a health dialog to foster solutions.

This involvement ensure that good quality history is captured as they can see the purpose and benefit of capturing it and have ownership on this process.

I have posted something similiar in other posts as well with a little more detail if you wish to search..

A CMMS doesn't do a thing if you don't tell it what to do; and it doesn't give you any information that you don't take the time to put into it- even a good CMMS.

Quality data on the work order from start at the requestor to finish from the technician should be driven by the company culture as an expectation and be part of a documented practice or SOP. The documented practice should be clear on its expectations.

The need for quality data and following documented practices should be talked about at maintenance group meetings (and all group meetings) on a regular basis or addressed when the quality of the data slips to instill it in people.

People want to do quality work when it is appreciated. The company needs to make extra effort known and rewarded. When new people come onboard, they will see the company culture is strong and conform to it.

jmo

Hello Rick,

Collecting history is something that both operators and maintainers should be doing together.

If we could get the operators to firstly define the problem/functional failure, (what, when, where) and highlight the problem significance then the maintainers can get to work on identifying the failure mode and cause of failure.

Issues I have come across in the past is when the causes are just simply a long list of codes that sometimes don’t reflect the real reason of failure, often ending up as “UNK” (unknown) or “OTH” (other). We need to ensure how we collect history is specific to the equipment that we are collecting history for.

Once the history is collected and documented then the reliability engineers can start to do some weibull analysis on the data………………but that’s another forum topic……

Cheers Gary

quote:

From my experience the perception from millwrights is that if they identified themselves on a document, that it could bite them later.

quote:

One of the advantages of this is that it prevents the operator from magically disappearing

Make the operator visible again, by posting the most ridiculous requests on the board. That was the way we encountered to get rid of complaints like "pump not performing to standards".
Since the millwrights were always complaining about the operators, seeing their foes on the board, they got the message that there was enough room on the board for maintenance also