Another rapid results method

When everything hit the fan a year or so ago, I recall writing a post on rapid ways to improve asset performance. From the few emails I received, (nobody writes emails anymore...), I think it was able to help at least a few people.

The reality is, there are always rapid means of improving asset performance. But in the hurry-up world of daily operations we often neglect to deal with them - Even though we know they are good for us. (Sounds like vegetables doesn't it?)

This is the real challenge. Finding time to do the important things instead of continually chasing after the urgent things.

We've known this for years, yet we continue to cut employee levels to a point where dealing with both becomes a physical impossibility, but that risk management issue is another blog post.

Jump starting asset performance initiatives are pretty standard these days. Alignment surveys of critical assets, lubrication management storage, cleanliness, defect elimination, etc. There are a standard set of "go to" initiatives that can turn around the bottom line or raise the top line. (Or both)

But often overlooked is equipment level benchmarking, yet if done correctly it holds a lot of easily realized benefits.

The basic premise is this...

Comparing costs per ton (say) for maintenance doesn't give you any idea as to the actual asset performance underpinning it.

For example, site A may have lower unit costs than site B, yet site B has dramatically lower costs of maintenance and higher operation rates for a key, and high cost, asset.

In site or even process level benchmarking this sort of thing would go largely unnoticed. But when compared with others within its asset class and type, the underlying performance narrative emerges.

The process? Straight forward, and only requiring some technical capability towards the middle.

a) Define what good performance is. (Not as easy as it first looks) Determine the key performance indicators that will best represent this thinking.

b) Break the asset groups into types / classes

c) Compare each of the assets to one another and to indicators selected.

d) Determine the landmark performers, and comprehensively investigate the maintenance strategies in place.

e) Validate them! The most important and overlooked step. They might not be smart, they might have just "gotten away with it"for some reason. Each failure management strategy needs to be validated against effectiveness and applicability criteria.

f) Implement them. (Again, not as easy as it sounds - And more than changing a few lines in your ERP.)

The result? The financial result is the rapid transition of validated leading practices, within your own organization, that can be easily transferred.

But there are intangible results here. Issues like momentum building, gaining support, and pulling a rabbit out of your hat. By far the most important, as I read it, is the reliability focus it builds, particularly as the end result is a combination of existing work, with a few minor tweaks.

Very enjoyable projects, particularly the implementation part.