quote:

In reality it doesn't take great technical skill to lube equipment.

http://www.craneaccidents.com/dummy/liebherr.htm

Be carefull not to get an award..

ISO9000 auditors may not know the difference between decibles, rms and orders but they should know the management system based on the PDCA cycle to get desirable results.

However, the best practice or gap closure asseesors should know the subject matter.

Joe, are saying operators should lube the equipment, not technicians? If yes, who would manage the oil inventories, prefilter the lub oil, prevent oil contamination, change oil filters, do onsite oil tests, take lube samples, etc?

Josh, all those questions, I get the impression that in your plant lube oil does not exist.
What is your opinion? How is it done over there?
Are you an iso auditor?

We have all types of oil on offshore platforms.

I thought I have said my opinion above.

I'm a certified ISO9000 internal auditor.

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

quote:

I'm a certified ISO9000 internal auditor

That explains a lot.

Sometimes being quality oriented is good for defect elimination.

Josh, I like iso audits, the internal ones I classify as funny (finger pointing clan, paper maniacs), although they are learning fast.
The external ones I see like a challenge, it forces you to think ahead.

But, I have a vague suspicion that Terry wants to get this site ISO - certified and hired you to do the audit.
Is that correct?

Quote from Josh:

"Joe, are saying operators should lube the equipment, not technicians? If yes, who would manage the oil inventories, prefilter the lub oil, prevent oil contamination, change oil filters, do onsite oil tests, take lube samples, etc?"

I"ll answer rhetorically first.

Who manages the inventories of raw materials, verifies the specs and quality of the raw materials, does the test of the raw materials, and takes samples of the raw materials.

My answer is that the operators don't do all of those things. They may do a slice of them, even a small slice. Someone with more knowledge and experience does those jobs.

Obviously the operators could not do the lube jobs if they don't have time either.

I believe some change in paradigm is necessary. Jobs cannot be viewed as maintenance or production only. The goal of the organization is to get all the necessary jobs done most efficiently.

By in large, labor is a cheap commodity. Lubrication is your #1 maintenance program. Time will be given for doing the job or not doing the job - not is much worse. Many are in Union environments and yes there is a difference between operations and maintenance and should be in my opinion.

Without dedicated oilers you find yourself off schedule and the lubrication program in the hands schedulers/planners mostly cattering to the whims of operation. The maint people doing 'oilling' will get pulled-off to do a job operations has given precedence. Then it's off to another job lubrication taking a backseat. Will they get back before the next PM? I doubt it! When you break-up your manpower and crafts you start on a spiral decline. And, some odd years later you're in a crunch not having qualified people.

In the operations side of life; over the years the operator gains experience of 'how to' run the machines that may take 20 years to gain and that only from the 'old man' that mentored him. The 'early-out' retirement programs have left many plants without the mentor to teach the next generation.

Poor managerial decissions has taken things in a poor operating environment. Cut people to the bare-bones aspect are floundering to keep-up with productions demands and in many cases productions quantities were more 30 years ago than now. In too many cases the boys that are running the show are running it into the ground as they never came up through the ranks nor paid their dues. Their high salaries are sometimes as much in six months than the working man makes in his lifetime and they act like labor wages are excessive. Unqualified management has taken this to where it is now; not the working man they won't listen to!!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sam Pickens,

Yes Sam agree.
And when something breaks down management are the first to point fingers at the maintenance dept and ask why they aren't doing their jobs properly - why did this break down???
It takes 1 - 2 years for poor decisions to show up - I wish they show'd up a lot sooner before the incompetent decision makers moved on.

Mike.

Lots of good conversation. As far as lubricating a large integrated facility like a paper mill, it takes more than the average Joe Blow. Topping off a pump or reducer is simple for sure. Putting in 220 hydraulic oil in a system that has 220 compound in it can be disastrous. See, 220 oil in not necessarily 220 oil. Cost us 4+ hours of downtime on a paper machine when the different additive packages attacked each other and clogged up the filters on the CC roll. All because a good intentioned papermaker saw a reservoir a little low and decided to help.

We have 10 cost centers (areas) within our mill. With a central day storage tank for our paper machine oil, there is a valving procedure that must be followed in order to get the oil to the correct machine without overfilling one of the others. It may not be rocket science, but it certainly more than bottom job.

Our facility just went through a ˜right' sizing and in the process, our oiler classification was eliminated. 9 oilers took the early out package because they no longer have a job. I have been trying to get the ˜owners' of the equipment interested in servicing it, but have run into much resistance. Their staffing was also reduced making just maintaining status quo tough. The maintenance crew is a different union and can not take over the lubrication due to contract issues. Besides, maintenance took the biggest hit with nearly 30% of the force eliminated.

I am now working on a scope of work for lubrication of the facility and will entertain bids from contractors for the job of lubrication for the facility.

I will let you know how it works out in the near future.

One thing I have learned over the years: no matter how hard your try, you can not wean machinery off of lubricants. They will just quit on you.

Just my 1.5 cents worth,

Gary B

Looks like the eagle (ahum, beanies) has landed, are you sure they did not come from another place they totally wrecked?

I like to see: "the buck stops here"! If no one is responsible, sluff-off will happen. Operators doing lube, 'oh, Joe did it last week', how did Joe do it? Where's Joe's grease gun? Who's accountable?

PM says 18 grams/mo - operator puts in ???? "18 grams, are these people crazy; who's gonna believe BS like that". Isn't that reality. Has anyone ever seen an electrican inject over 5 shots regardless of size of the motor?

With the criticality and importance of lubricant, why does a lubrication program take back seat to - hey we need these guys to fix the emergency break-downs; we're short handed now!

The four lubricators would probably reduce the needed manpower by twenty people in a maintenance staff of 400.

Just remembering leading and lagging indicators.
I recon a good leading indicator would be reduction in lubricators.
Anyone hazzard a guess as to what the lagging indicator would come out as??

Mike.

Sorry let me qualify this eg: lagging indicator of OEE for plant.

Mike.

More emergency WO's and additional manpower needed.

quote:

Originally posted by svanels:
Looks like the eagle (ahum, beanies) has landed, are you sure they did not come from another place they totally wrecked?

Come on svanels, how can you say something like that?

Point taken eugene, we will make it to:

the seagull has landed..

Seagull... that's more like it.