Ideas, Views, and Experiences on how to Implement a

Ideas, Views, and Experiences on how to Implement a Condition Based Maintenance Strategy Marcus Bengtsson Department of Innovation, Design and Product Development Mälardalen University P.O. Box 325, SE-631 05 Eskilstuna, Sweden [email protected] phone +46 16 153 486, fax +46 16 153 610

Abstract The preventive maintenance strategy condition based maintenance has been reported to hold many advantages compared to predetermined and corrective maintenance. Although, investigation shows that the condition based maintenance strategy is not utilized in the Swedish industry to the extent one might expect. This paper sets out that the issue can be inherent from an organizational point of view and that general guidelines and implementation models of condition based maintenance thus far has been absent. The objective with this paper is to present ideas, views, and experiences to form general guidelines for a condition based maintenance implementation model. Empirics on the topic have been gathered through E-mail questions to a group of professionals within the Swedish maintenance field. Four groups of professionals: they who have implemented condition monitoring on their production process, they who have implemented condition monitoring into their products, they who teach within the area of maintenance, and they who develop condition monitoring tools, give their views on some open questions. Ideas, views, and personal experiences of the respondents are presented, compared, and analyzed. 14 factors were distinguished, including e.g.: management support, cooperation between departments, to quantify gains and losses, to visualize incentives etc., as important to take in great consideration when implementing condition based maintenance. The most interesting finding though might be found in the aspect of a relatively common ground that the respondents from the different groups have provided in their answers. It thus seems that it might be possible to develop a general implementation model for condition monitoring tools and the condition based maintenance strategy, at least more strategic guidelines. The discussion in the paper provides a first draft of such guidelines focusing on qualitative and some quantitative activities to be performed in three phases of an implementation process: namely before, in designing, and during the actual implementation. Keywords: Condition Based Maintenance (CBM); Condition Monitoring (CM); Implementation Model; Organizational Aspects; Guidelines

Introduction Maintenance, a prerequisite for most assets to function, can be performed in two major types, corrective and preventive. Corrective maintenance is performed after a function failure; the type can be well suited for wear-and-tear components that are not critical for a production process, but a catastrophic strategy for critical components. For those a preventive strategy is better suited. Preventive maintenance can be performed in two different ways, with fixed (in time or usage) intervals, or based on the condition. The European terminology standard (SS-EN 13306, 2001) denotes these types predetermined maintenance and condition based maintenance. Independent investigations show that condition based maintenance, within the Swedish industry, is not utilized to the extent one might expect. Alsyouf (2004) presents an investigation within the Swedish industry putting condition based maintenance at a second place, tide with corrective maintenance, as the most frequently used maintenance strategy, only loosing to predetermined maintenance. The tools,

1

condition monitoring, that where reported to be used in the same investigation are of quite low-tech art though. Another investigation performed by Bengtsson (2004) reports that condition based maintenance, as a maintenance type, is only utilized in 10% of all maintenance activities, the investigation came to the same conclusions as Alsyouf’s concerning the use of condition monitoring tools. Frånlund (2004) reported an investigation, performed by the Swedish maintenance society (UTEK), that came to the same conclusion in the utilization grade of condition based maintenance as Bengtsson’s (2004) investigation did. Condition monitoring tools have been used and developed for many decades. Still, according to the investigations above, the majority of the Swedish industry has not started to utilize the technical advantage of condition monitoring tools. Looking at published research within condition based maintenance and condition monitoring most papers and books deal with the technical aspects, less of organizational. Within other maintenance strategies and philosophies, maybe more widely spread, such as total productive maintenance and reliability centred maintenance, organizational aspects and implementation strategies has been published. This paper sets out that the issue of the relatively poor utilization grade of condition based maintenance and the relatively low technical usage of condition monitoring tools within the Swedish industry can be inherent from an organizational point of view. The objective with this paper is to present ideas, views, and experiences to form general guidelines for a condition based maintenance implementation model. The paper is divided into six sections, with introduction as the first. A brief theoretical frame of reference will cover some theory on the topic. A discussion of how the study was conducted will follow in the method section, with presentation of the data in the empirics sections. The empirics will be followed by a discussion and finally some conclusions and suggestions for future research will follow.

Theoretical frame of reference Work methods in an organization are often deeply rooted in the ordinary day to day work. Changing work methods or implementing new can sometimes be looked upon with scepticism by both employees and management, sometimes more by one than the other. In changing work methods or implementing new it is suggested important to follow an implementation process or introduction phase to overcome barriers that might otherwise be overlooked (Kotter, 1996). Within maintenance there is no difference. The following references and quotes give examples of the mix needed to implement a condition based maintenance strategy. Spare (2001) states that condition based maintenance programs should be designed and implemented through: “Well-defined goals and a cost-effective investment strategy...” (p. 954). Reichard et.al. (2000) give a more technically oriented aspect by stating: “The implementation of such systems requires a combination of sensor data fusion, feature extraction, classification, and prediction algorithms.” (p.329). Jiang et.al. (2002) point out that the human aspect cannot be forgotten in condition based maintenance strategy by stating: “Correct analysis and diagnosis based on the collected information is essential for right maintenance decisions: when, where, and what maintenance actions should be carried out for a specific piece of equipment. Obviously, participation and intervention of the human experts are necessary for all these activities.” (p.1957). However, Carnero (2003) points out that there is no international standard on managing a predictive maintenance program, little less to say no standard for implementing it either. An effective condition based maintenance strategy thus implies an efficient cooperation between the technology and the humans working with it backed up by an understanding and focused organization. Only focusing upon one or the other would probably mean a less effective or even a failed implementation. Several researchers have published smaller implementation models (or steps). Mobley (2002) presents how a Predictive Maintenance (PdM) program should be established focusing on: (1) goals, objectives, and benefits, (2) functional requirements, (3) selling predictive maintenance programs, (4) selecting a predictive maintenance system, (5) database development, and (6) getting started. Mitchell

2

and Murry (1995) present how a Predictive Maintenance Program was implemented at the US Department of Energy Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The program was composed of five major elements: tests and exercises, condition monitoring, data storage and retrieval, training, and program goals and reports. Mostafa (2004) presents how Predictive Maintenance was implemented at an Egyptian Glass Company. Elements in the implementation consisted of: education and learning, wide participation, management commitment, full utilization of technology, maintenance system reengineering, full system integration, and cost and return. Other researchers have also published how a condition based maintenance strategy has been implemented at some particular company or on some particular asset. Missing, though, might be a more general approach to an implementation model, taking into consideration both the technical aspects of condition based maintenance and the humans that are suppose to work with it as well as the organization that is suppose to support the implementation and the new strategy. More case studies and global research, taking into account multiple companies and industries and different kind of respondents in different positions, would most likely enhance the ability of industry to faster and more accurately implement condition based maintenance.

Method The study is qualitative in nature; it consists of a brief interview with open questions performed through E-mails. Interviews are normally performed face to face or via telephone. In this study, as deeper answers were sought than maybe can be given instantaneous, the respondents were informed, via telephone, of the study and its purpose. Two open questions and three more fixed questions, see below, were then E-mailed together with an accompanying letter, which again explained the study and its purpose. The respondents were asked to take time to reflect and think about the questions and then answer them in writing when they felt they had the time to do so properly. This way the respondents did not have to feel pressured in reserving a specific time but could be apart of the study when it fitted them the best. The questions were five in total but only the first two required to be answered with somewhat of a quantity in text. The two first questions were phrased as follows: 1. How is Condition Based Maintenance best implemented, considering both the technology and the organization where the technology will be used? 2. Does any model exist that one could use and are there any specific factors one should focus upon when implementing Condition Based Maintenance? The three remaining questions were focusing how the respondent would classify him or herself (see below), if the respondent would like to be apart of a network of studies within this particular topic, and if the respondents knew of someone else that would be suitable for the study. The classification consisted of four different groups and the respondents were asked to select the category which represented them the best. The categories were: A. They who have practical experiences from a live implementation of Condition Monitoring Equipment (CM)/Condition Based Maintenance (CBM) on their production equipment. B. They who have practical experiences from a live implementation of CM/CBM in their products (that are sold to customers). C. They who might not have practical experiences from a live implementation of CM/CBM but who teaches or performs research within the area of CM/CBM. D. They who might not have practical experiences from a live implementation of CM/CBM but develop CM/CBM tools. The respondents were professionals from various industries and the academia or other educational institutions. The industries ranged from condition monitoring suppliers, manufacturing industry, pulp and paper industry, power industry, consultants, rail vehicle industry etc. The respondents in the academia or other educational institutions came from both universities and consultant companies. 25 respondents were contacted by the author, knowing that they might be interested to be apart of the

3

study as well as thoroughly intoned with the issue. Some of the original respondents that did answer then, in their turn, proposed other persons that might be interested and suitable to be apart of the study. The number of the respondents came to be a total of 20. Due to non-response of some of the first contacted respondents and of some respondents suggested by the respondents that did reply, the total number of respondents came to be somewhat lower than expected and wished for. The number of respondents as it turned out to become was though, for the objective of the study, considered enough. The empirics were collected during the spring and summer of 2005 and analyzed in the fall. The empirics from the different respondents were coded into numbers and copied to a collective document. The document was read through and keywords/factors were highlighted by the author and one colleague. A total of 14 keywords/factors were highlighted and documented. The collective document was read through again and where statements made by the respondents fitted they were connected to the proper keyword/factor in a table (see table 1). The 14 factors found were analyzed, rephrased into activities, and entered in an order of sequence in where they might need to appear in an implementation process. Some activities should be performed before the implementation can commence, some should be performed when designing the implementation, and some should be performed through the entire implementation. When performing qualitative studies and maybe with E-mail based interviews as a data collecting tool in particular; a few words of validity and reliability should be mentioned. The objective of reliability according to Yin (1994) is that:…if a later investigator followed exactly the same procedures as described by an earlier investigator and conducted the same case study all over again, the later investigator should arrive at the same findings and conclusions.” (p.36). In this particular study it would indeed be possible to replicate the study, the interview questions and the type of respondents, and the method is well documented. Arriving at the same conclusion might be a bit problematic though. The world is constantly changing and so are also the companies and different industries the case has had its focus in; different answers might be given by a similar group of respondents if asked again. The analysis of the answers might also be hard to reproduce, in this analysis two researchers used their minds and, although tried hard not to, subjective judgements have been bound to affect the result in even the slightest way. The validity of this study is more difficult to prove; ideas, views, and experiences of a respondent are what it is, ideas, views, and experiences. The implication of the study has not been to prove a point or to validate a hypothesis, but to gather opinions from a broad spectrum of the Swedish industry. Only one source of evidence has been used, although it has been compared with literature, the source can still be accused of being unreliable as the researcher has not had any personal contact with the respondents apart from telephone calls and an accompanying letter. The respondents have not been observed as they gave input to the questions as they were asked to do so when they felt they had the time. This method might also seem unreliable as the respondents might have given their input at stressed occasions while the meaning of the method was the contrary. The respondents were asked to take time to reflect and think of the questions before, in a controlled and not stressful occasion, answer them. That the analysis was partly performed by several researchers and that the draft of the results and report was studied by others give more credibility and some validity to the study though.

Empirics The empirics of the study are open answers to open questions, the respondents were asked to answer, in writing, based on their own experiences, views, and ideas. The collective empiric, when comprised in the actual answers, reached a little over 10 pages. Keywords/factors were highlighted and entered into a table (see table 1). Below, the factors will be presented and compared to earlier research and theory on the topic. Surprisingly few respondents mention the maturity level in the company interesting in implementing condition monitoring (CM)/condition based maintenance (CBM) as one important factor. That a company needs to be on somewhat of a preventive level in their maintenance planning before starting

4

an implementation of condition based maintenance is by one respondent looked upon as a prerequisite though. To go from a fire fighting, corrective, strategy to a condition based can be a risky move, better would be to grow in maturity in smaller steps and go from corrective to predetermined and then (if need exists) to a condition based maintenance strategy. That top management or at least management in general is positive to a change in an organization is by several researchers necessary (Mitchell and Murry, 1995), (Mobley, 2002), (Nakajima, 1988), (Bengtsson and Jackson, 2004). Implementing CM/CBM is not different from any other change and many of the respondents in the study agree on this. Many of the respondents do not even motivate this factor but simply states it as one of the most important factors that needs to exist prior a start of implementation in order to make things happen. Many respondents point out that CM/CBM is not a strategy for a small part of a company but for the entire organization. Several departments need to be involved in order to change and go from one strategy to the condition based maintenance strategy. In manufacturing companies that implement CM/CBM in their production process it is pointed out that it is the cooperation between the maintenance and operation departments that needs to be enhanced but also between the former two and the purchasing department. One respondent that come from the category that implement CM/CBM in their products goes as far as saying that implementing it in their products will mean a paradigm shift in their industry and that cooperation will be a vital part in this. The view on cooperation and working in teams to attain common goals is often highly valued in change management (Kotter, 1995), (Nakajima, 1988). Mitchell and Murry (1995) states that difficulties regarding the change in culture and creating a spirit of cooperation will be smaller if cross-functional teams are involved as early as the specification phase in an implementation. To work methodically in choosing where to focus the efforts of CM/CBM as well as deciding what technologies to use seems to be a vital factor to many of the respondents. To perform a criticality analysis to decide where CM/CBM should be implemented to generate the most incentives and not to implement it on objects that might not be gaining from the new strategy is both an important step in return on investment as well as motivating co-workers and visualizing the strengths of the strategy. Many respondents suggest using RCM-methodology as one solution to decide where and how to condition monitor, this view is also supported by Overman (2002). Two related factors that were given a lot of attention from the respondents deal with incentives and goals, gains and losses, and to quantify and visualize these. To quantify is necessary in deciding if and where CM/CBM will be financially justifiable. To visualize goals and incentives, that partly can be drawn from the quantification of the possible gains and losses, is a part of motivating the entire company and to create a positive atmosphere in the change that is to come. A study performed by Bengtsson and Jackson (2004) suggests that one vision that spans for a few years, and several achievable short-term goals that spans from a few months to a year should be created. This view of one vision and several short-term goals is also supported by Kotter (1996). Many respondents mention measurements such as OEE (Overall Equipment Effectiveness) and DuPont calculations, and other return on investment calculations as important in visualizing the strengths of CM/CBM. Mobley (2002) supports the idea that before setting the goals and vision it is important to measure a baseline dataset that can serve as a reference.

5

6

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3 D1 D2 D3 D4

Gradual Pilot DFMaint Decision Quantification of possible Visualization of Educational Communication Motivation of Involved Assignments of Maturity in Management Cooperation co-workers champion responsibilities implementation projects goals/incentives effort gains and losses between dept. support model support organization x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

TABLE 1 The 14 factors found in the study, A1-D4 is the respondents code, the x's symbolizes support for the specific factors.

To educate, communicate, and motivate CM/CBM before and during an implementation are three factors that seem important in succeeding with the new strategy. This, again, has to do with building a positive atmosphere around CM/CBM. Education might be needed at different levels for different employees. Some might just need an introduction to understand the coming change while the employees that are going to work with CM/CBM on a daily basis might need education at a higher level and additional time to practically test and learn the new technologies. Training and education of the employees, in order to implement and run the new maintenance strategy successfully, is a prerequisite and earlier research state that the failure of many predictive maintenance programs are a result from poorly or no training at all (Mitchell and Murry, 1995), (Mobley, 2002). To communicate visions, success stories, incentives etc. are also views on important factors that the respondents share with earlier research; again, we are landing in creating a positive atmosphere for the change. Mitchell and Murry (1995) mean that any success, especially in the early phases of implementation, should be published, no matter how small. Some of the respondents point out the importance in involving a champion in the implementation. Someone that really believes in CM/CBM and the change, someone that can make things happen. Surprisingly few though, suggest assignments of responsibilities as a decisive factor. Literature on the topic suggests that responsibilities should be assigned for: e.g. development of program requirements, implementation of the program, and assessing the program (Mitchell and Murry, 1995). Several respondents seem to consider that a gradual implementation with pilot projects on the most critical objects of a process as the best way to go. Keep it simple in the start and then grow from there to include more objects and more advanced technologies. This approach is not in any way controversial from change and implementation literature (Mitchell and Murry, 1995), (Mobley, 2002) (Kotter, 1996), on the contrary it would be somewhat surprising if these respondents would consider differently. Mitchell and Murry (1995) states that one should not try to incorporate the entire world in the first phase and that the golden rule is to stay small, “Select one location, one type of equipment, and one process to initiate the program.” (p. 10). The last factor that will be given attention does not really deal with implementation of CM/CBM but can more or less be associated to the maturity in how an organization works. Designing for maintenance (DFMaint), i.e. designing a process or a product as maintainable as possible, is a proactive methodology, containing different tools, that looks to the maintainability of a product or process in the development stage (see Markeset and Kumar, 2001). Some of the respondents mean that being proactive in this manner would provide easier access to CM/CBM if wished at a later occasion. Discussion The factors presented and analyzed above are not controversial from literature and theory presented in general change management or implementation of various maintenance strategies. The difference may be found in the global approach of the study, incorporating several different types of respondents and industries to give their ideas, views, and experiences on the topic that might have provided an added collective grip on the issue. One interesting aspect of the factors found lies in the fact that no group of respondents distinguishes particularly more than the other. The support for the different factors is in many cases spread over several groups and only a few are supported by one single group (and in those cases they are not supported that strongly). This might indicate that implementation of condition monitoring tools and a condition based maintenance strategy composes of general issues and problems and that it might be easier to develop a generalized implementation model than earlier thought. Many respondents did raise concerns on the implications of developing a standardized and generalized implementation model but their answers proved them wrong in that they in many aspects were sharing a common ground, specifically on the organizational topic. To be able to make more use of the 14 factors that were presented in table 1 they have been rephrased into activities and numbered in a sequential order as they should be focused upon in an implementation process. Figure 1 divides the implementation into three phases: a pre-phase, a design

7

phase, and an implementation phase. The different activities will have greater importance in some phases than others; some have great importance in all. In the pre-phase, before implementation of CM/CBM can start a few activities must be performed in order to determine that CM/CBM is the proper change to take, that management is supporting the change, that cooperation between the affected departments is present (or even exist), that incentives are quantified and visualized, and that a decision support model has been developed or implemented. Some of these activities are vital in the entire implementation; others are more important in the start and will have less importance in the later phases but should none the less be forgotten. At this phase it is also wise to measure a baseline dataset, as suggested by Mobley (2002), which can serve as a reference when setting the goals as well as a reference through the entire implementation. Both quantitative measurements such as OEE calculations and qualitative measurements such as the employees perception of the work tasks and environment should be apart of such a baseline. In the design phase additional activities must be incorporated. Education, communication, motivation, involvement of different key persons (e.g. politically correct champions), assignments of responsibilities are all activities to create a positive atmosphere and environment around CM/CBM. To plan and execute the implementation in a gradual approach using pilot projects, an approach supported from both the respondents in this study and theory on the topic, will give a better chance in performing the change successfully. Activity Measure and analyze the

Analyze current situation and applicability

Go-no go decision

Start implementation

Pre-phase

Design phase

Implementation phase

maturity in the organization Support the new strategy from the top management Build a strong cooperation between departments Use decision support models Quantify possible gains and losses Visualize goals/incentives Educate key persons (that will work with the new strategy) Communicate and market the new strategy Motivate co-workers Involve champion(s) Assign responsibilities Implement in a gradual approach Pilot project(s) Important activity in this phase Plan activity Follow up activity Not a prioritized activity in this phase

FIGURE 1 The factors arranged of importance in the different implementation phases, before, when designing, and during an implementation.

In the implementation phase many integrated activities must take place in order to stay on track and not to loose momentum. The proper decisions must now have been taken and all effort should focus on the actual change. More education to raise the awareness, increase competence, and to increase the quality of the new technologies used is necessary. To keep up the motivation through good communication (e.g. of success stories), incentives, goals, and pay-back is necessary to build and strive for continuity in the positive atmosphere that gives fuel to the momentum. The management and/or the persons responsible for the implementation must not stress the pace and try to incorporate

8

everything at once but to keep their focus on the small changes. The short-term goals should be the focus at this stage; the vision should still stay a vision and be a guiding force to build momentum. Conclusions and Future Research The objective with this paper was to present ideas, views, and experiences to form general guidelines for a condition based maintenance implementation model. Empirics on the topic were gathered through an E-mail study performed within the Swedish industry in where open answers were given on two questions. The answers were analyzed and keywords were highlighted. The keywords were rephrased into activities to be performed in a pre-phase, design phase, and implementation phase of CM/CBM and where, in the process, to put the most focus on the different activities. Interesting findings has been found in the aspect of a relative common ground that the respondents from the different groups have provided in their answers. It thus seems that it might be possible to develop a general implementation model for condition monitoring tools and the condition based maintenance strategy, at least more strategic guidelines than today can be found. The discussion provides a first draft of such guidelines focusing on qualitative and some quantitative activities to be performed before, in designing, and during the actual implementation. Future research within the topic needs to focus on validating the activities within the context of implementing CM/CBM. Case studies within companies that recently has implemented CM/CBM or through action research, observing and participating in an actual implementation of CM/CBM would be a preferred methodology to perform such a validation.

References Alsyouf, I. (2004). Cost Effective Maintenance for Competitive Advantages. Doctoral Thesis. Sweden, Växjö: Växjö University Press. Bengtsson, M. (2004). Användandet av tillståndsbaserat underhåll i svensk industri – en enkätundersökning genomförd under Underhållsmässan 2004. Technical Report, IDPPOPTR:04:01. Department of Innovation, Design and Product Development. Mälardalen University: Sweden. Bengtsson, M. and Jackson, M. (2004). Important Aspect to take into Considerations when Deciding to Implement Condition Based Maintenance. In proceeding from the 17th Conference of Condition Monitoring and Diagnostic Management, England, Cambridge: The Central Printing Services, University of Birmingham, UK. Carnero, C. M. (2003). How To Set Up a Predictive Maintenance Program. Quality Press. Vol. 36, Issue 3, pp. 56-61. Frånlund, J., “Görs underhåll i onödan?” in the Swedish magazine U&D, Chief Editor Olofsson, P., 04/2004. Jiang, G., Zhaohui, L., Yitao, C., Yuewu, W., and Shijie, C. (2002). Virtual environment conceptions for CBM of hydro-electric generating units. In proceedings from Power System Technology, PowerCon. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. USA, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Markeset, T. and Kumar, U. (2001). R&M and Risk-Analysis Tools in Product Design, to Reduce Life Cycle Cost and Improve Attractiveness. In proceeding of the 2001 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, Philadelphia.

9

Mitchell, B. F. and Murry, R. J. (1995). Predictive Maintenance Program Evaluation – Lessons Learned. In proceedings from the 1995 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, USA, Washington. Mobley, R. (2002). An Introduction to Predictive Maintenance – 2nd Edition. USA: ButterworthHeinemann/Elsevier Science. Mostafa, S. I. (2004) Implementation of proactive maintenance in the Egyptian Glass Company. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering. Vol. 10, No 2, pp. 107-122. Nakajima, S. (1988). Introduction to Total Productive Maintenance. USA, Cambridge: Productivity Press. Overman, R. (2002). RCM, Condition Monitoring, or Both? Maintenance Technology. January 2002, pp. 25-28. Reichard, K. M., Van Dyke, M., and Maynard, K. (2000). Application of sensor fusion and signal classification techniques in a distributed machinery condition monitoring system. In proceedings from the SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering. Spare, J. H. (2001). Building the Business Case for Condition-Based Maintenance. In proceedings from the Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exposition, USA, Atlanta, GA. Swedish Standards Institute, “Maintenance terminology”, SS-EN 13305, 2001. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research, Design and Methods – Second Edition. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

10