Does anyone know of good institutions which provide training for RCFA Facilitators. A 'Train the Trainer' type approach which would allow me to train persons within my organization.

VaughnQ

Posted this on the wrong message board initially

You can delete it by clicking Edit or Delete Messag & the Delete button is below the writing screen.

VaughnQ,

We at ALERT Analytical ( www.alertanalytical.com ), recommend a different approach to RCFA, training craftsmen on RCFA.

Sometimes when training management first on RCFA, craftsman think that it is is a management function rather than an everyday craftsman function.

By training your craftsman and making RCFA the job of craftsmen, the likelihood of a culture change at your facility grows. Craftsman are the personnel closest to equipment, and equipment problems and in reality are the cause of many equipment failures. We have learned that getting craftsmen and making RCFA a part of their job every day, they are the personnel able to make the most impact.

We teach Root Cause Failure Analysis while using Vibration Analysis, Stroboscope Analysis along with the common sense principles of looking at the failed components, documenting what you find, using tools such as the internet and equipment vendors to aid in finding the Root Cause of our equipment problems.

At ALERT, our trainings on RCFA are done by fellow craftsmen, this helps with:

Motivation: If he (our instructor) can do it we can too.

Blame Game: We use our mistakes to show that by admitting and solving our own craftsmen’s skills and weaknesses that we are helping our company instead of hiding our faults. It is one thing if management or engineers show craftsmen where to improve or what we have done wrong, compared to our fellow craftman (trainer) who can relate or show that we have done the same thing.

Solve low hanging fruit problems fast: By craftsmen leading the way, the process of extending the Mean Time Between Failures is done quickly and done by everyone. When this process is used it puts management back on the right track by managing craftsman procedures, by leading, promoting and building on a proactive culture in their facility.


Mark
ALERT
Emailinfo@alertanalytical.com
www.alertanalytical.com

That sounds good, Mark. Is it really working? Won't it take too much of the craftmen's valuble times for hands on skilled works?

What do you mean by stroboscope analysis?

Josh, my experience is that craftsmen also need training, (although they will say that they know everything already, and training is for management ).

This thing of training the upper clouds and magically transfer knowledge by "train the trainer" stuff, in the real world rarely sorts effects.
Having a higher education does not necessarily means having the skills/mindset to transfer knowledge.

Agreed that craftmen need training but here we are talking about RCFA (F for failure). My clarification is that do you really ask craftmen to do RCFA for equipment failures or troubleshooting of equipment problems?

Josh, who else would you ask?
Somebody in a office who never has seen the equipment, nor know what it is doing?

My first line of interrogation when I am doing a investigation (call it RCFA or maybe accident investigation or whatever) are the people closest to the situation.
For equipment that are the craftsmen who tear the equipment apart and the operators who are accostumed to hear/smell/see it everyday. If we think that the craft cannot grasp difficult things like Root Cause, they will play the game and pretend they are idiots (while they are watching you screwing up)

Josh wrote:

quote:

That sounds good, Mark. Is it really working? Won't it take too much of the craftmen's valuble times for hands on skilled works? What do you mean by stroboscope analysis?

As far as using dedicated mechanics for RCFA goes, I am with Steven, who else would you want to use?

Engineers are great. If not for engineers, where would the world be today? Still in the dark ages. But most never actually get "out in the field" and know what is going on in the areas of a plant as far as repairing something. The guy or gal who actually does the repair of the equipment, in my opinion, is the one who could be trained to do the best RCFA. Of course the fine arts of metallurgy would have to be left up to the qualified labs, but the basic RCFA can and is done by the average deciated mechanic or vibration analyst.

In my 40 years in mechanical maintentance mostly as a millwright and vibration analyst, I have had the pleasure of working with or around but one engineer who actually knew what the inside of a gearbox looked like, what a pump is composed of, what is inside a compressor, a hydraulic system, what a mechanical seal is and does, what the inside of a bearing looks like, what a coupling does and how it does it and on and on. I must say though that I did meet another engineer in suriname during a training this year that is pretty sharp in both aspects, books and mechanically.
Most engineers know the theory and "book" side of how the design is supposed to be of things but to have actually had hands on real plant life training, I think they are few and far between. OH! By the way, I only lacked one year becoming an engineer when I had to quit school to support my family, so I am on the engineers' side also.

From your question on "strobeoscope analysis" I guess it is safe to say you have not been trained in the fine art of using a strobe light, huh? It is amazing what one can see with a strobe light.

As far as taking "valuable times" from the craftsman to do RCFA, most RCFA only takes a short periord of time. If the mechanic(s) is(are) worked so hard that he(they) do not have a small amount of time to dedicate to find the cause of the failure, something is wrong.

Back to your quote, it does work and it does not take too much time from the skilled crafts' time to do the RCFA.

Only my opinion.

Ralph,
Nice post, it obviouly comes from your heart.
People are valuable resources. If we want to keep them enjoying their work, they must be given a chance to play, at something other than what they do every day. Participating in an RCFA is a great way to let them exercise their analytical skills (and these dont depend on a university degree). This is one way of enriching their jobs and their 'fun' element of work. In this sense we are empowering them to take decisions on behalf of the company itself, what could be more motivating than that? Not to forget of course that they hold a huge amount of knowledge of the equipment AND of the people who operate and maintain it.
Doing an RCA/RCFA can change the mindset of participants. Next time around, they will stop bad practices, whether their own or that of others, directly and on the spot. These bad practices lead to avoidable failures, so contrary to Josh's comment, their 'valuable' time is well spent, at least in my view.

VaughnQ, you started this thread, I suspect you are folowing the response, I must say that I was impressed by the organization of Mark and Ralph, and enjoyed every moment of the trainings they conducted, I am a vibration fan, but I sacrificed the vibration analyst parts and sat in the "lower" classes and discovered more "secrets/skills" I would encounter during performance or appraisal talks.

That was a great question Josh,

My belief is, If we do not train our craftsmen what will the results be? The same jobs will be done over and over again because the root cause of the problem was never corrected. So in actuality, if we do not train craftsmen then we will never have time, but more problems, which will only increase our workload.
(example) A few years ago, Ralph (Ralph Stewart) and I went to a paper mill. We were called in there to investigate why the Vibration Department was missing bearing failures. After taking vibration readings on their two paper machines we found 98 bearing defects that needed attention on the two machines. We learned that their vibration parameters and database setup were incorrect and this was causing the analysts to miss the failures and so we trained them on the proper setup and how to properly analyze vibration data.

So at this time we’re thinking “hey, we did well, now the vibration department can find these bearing problems”.

However, when we had the craftsmen change these bearings we went through all 98 of them to find the root cause of their failures.

We found that 78 of these bearing defects came from two sources. Both sources were easily eliminated (if you want to see a report on these problems you can email me personally alert@centurytel.net and I will send you the info.

These bearing failures have been occurring on these two paper machines for many years and it had become accepted to change these bearings. So now this company has a large maintenance department it has created to change these bearings whenever they fail. We have many examples of craftsmen solving chronic problems and extending equipment life. We only have to give them permission to succeed.

I get a kick out of watching the engineers when craftsmen are coming to them to aid them in helping with RCFA instead of the engineers trying to get cooperation from the craftsmen. When this happens, you’re well on your way to becoming a profitable company.

So, to answer your question:

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
That sounds good, Mark. Is it really working? Won't it take too much of the craftmen's valuble times for hands on skilled works?

These craftsmen would have been able to eliminate these bearing problems easily if it were a part of their job function and they had common sense RCFA training.

I can see no other way to compete in today’s competitive environment.

quote:

Originally posted by Josh:
What do you mean by stroboscope analysis?

Josh, this is a training which teaches your craftsmen how to use a stroboscope to find problems on your equipment. If you would like to email me here I can send you information and videos on what this training consists of along with some problems found using strobe analysis.


Josh, it is my belief that if someone wants to become a leader at their facility, they must increase the skills of their craftsmen. Craftsmen need to view the engineers as a valuable resource to go to, instead of depending on them to solve all problems. Steven (svanels) is the best example I've seen of an extremely intelligent engineer who still realizes the importance of empowering craftsmen and does a great job at it.

Vee, great post. I agree 100 percent.

I guess I'm convinced then. Thanks for all the valuable comments which support my personal belief that craftmen can become the anchors of equipment reliability. With the views given in this thread, perhaps there should be craftmen and engineer teamwork for RCFA, something like QIT/CAT.

On the engineers don't know about equipment and only the craftmen know, I think this view is oversimplified and maybe valid only for graduate engineers without industrial training or just started working. After several years working in the plant, the graduate engineers should expereince the full cycle of plant maintenance activities including turnaorunds or shutdown during which they can learn the inside of equipment. If not, maybe it's their manager's fault fot not guiding them towards competency or keep giving them paperwork to do.

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

Everybody is responsible for his own development, we engineers have "learned" to look for written information, to develop critical thinking, but keeping your mind open that is the point. I also started fresh, unexperienced, but I did not wait for managers or bosses to learn to work.
Lots of people think that after vocational school, high school, university or whatever institution, they are done with learning.
Just participating on this forum, every time I learn something new, get ideas, change my opinion. Unfortunately there are too much people who are stuck in their cubicles, and don't try to look over the fence.

Too much people stuck at their cubicles. Where is this? I thought we visit the plant or equipment as necessary with permit or permission from the control room. And shutdowns or turnarounds are only a short duration of very several years. So no wonder those guys appear to spend more time in office doing engineering works or analyses. Our local engineering institution encourages a balance between time spent in office works and site works when applying for a professional status.

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

Everybody is responsible for his own development. Yes agreed but how do graduate engineers know the syllabus without guidance? Do you have a technology inventory matrix for graduate graduates for each discipline against which to assess their compentency levels as time goes on? Is staff development considered one of your core functions? I believe both sides have to commit and contribute versus a one-man show.

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

Josh, if when I started I was going to complain about guidance, mentoring etc..

My boss would tell me that I was hired to solve problems, not to create them, because I was privileged with a higher education and should find out how to apply it. (school of hard knocks)

About the cubicles, Not only office workers sit in cubicles. There are people living in the same house but they are living in cu.. (abstract thinking, paradigms enfim HR stuff)

For me, college eductation (BS Engineering) aim is to teach your mind on how to think and each course is like a tool inside a toolbox. To solve a problem you have to switch your mind on and search on that toolbox which tool can help in solving the problem at hand: design of experiments?, facilities layout?, systems simulation?, thermodynamics laws etc...

Then when you get out of the university to work in the industry, you discover that there are many others tools that can be used to solve problems that were not included in the university courses.

VaughnQ,

Kindly email me on rolaa12@yahoo.com, and Ill send you a brochure on RCFA, these is one of the courses I teach.

Regards,

Rolly Angeles

Check out www.forsthofferassociates.com