Defect Elimination remains the Key Ingredient to Performance Improvement

In a study completed in 2007, Aberdeen Group noted the growing difference the asset performance of Process Industries and corresponding best in class performers. Interestingly this is despite the adoption and use of predictive technologies in their failure management plans and processes.


The figures produced in this graphic tell a tale of significant differences in the process industries throughout the American economy with a noticeable difference in Overall Equipment Effectiveness and Throughput telling the tale of opportunities lost.

So if these industries are early adopters of technological integration and of predictive technologies, then what could be the problem?

Aberdeen Group points to the growing difference in the integration of MES (manufacturing Execution Systems) to their corporate EAM programs as well as a lack of automation at the plant floor level of ERP systems.

While this is an informative recommendation from Aberdeen, it takes a technology-centric approach to all improvement when there are other factors that should also be considered.

For example; the manufacturing industries of the United States in particular have been on a long quest to implement methodologies such as TPM (Total productive Maintenance) and LEAN during the past two decades in particular.

Inherent in both of these approaches is a focus on the elimination of defects and failures that reduce the ability to produce to full capacity; most notably through the use of the formula Overall Equipment Effectiveness. (Noted in the graph above)

Call it what you will; defect elimination, production tracking, root cause analysis, or even the industry term FRACAS, the result is the same. A very simple focus on recording and quantifying the costs of lost production, and then acting to eliminate these forever.

For years this approach has been maligned by more “serious” reliability consultants be-cause of its simplicity and potential for driving dangerous behaviours and analyses.

However, the reality is that where lost production equates to reduced profitability an approach embracing OEE will produce the quickest return on activity.

OEE is often touted as revealing the hidden plant. That is, the portion of the plants potenial output that is unable to be fully exploited due to chronic or repeat losses in the areas of availability, performance or quality yields.

The figure above, from the website OEE Toolkit, clearly shows graphically how The Hidden Plant, as it is called, is identified from operational reports.

In order to successfully obtain these benefits companies need to:

1. Set up a simplistic means of tracking production versus target and recording the reasons for not achieving targets.
2. Quantify the lost production in terms of potential income losses. (Monetized reports)
3. Report regularly (daily or weekly) on the lost production opportunities to senior management, which, once financial figures are included, will ensure their full attention to the issues at hand.
4. Set up small, cross discipline teams to analyse the events, determine the root causes, and recommend ways of preventing recurrence.
5. Track the recommendations versus the events to record the potential income generation opportunities that have been saved.

Although multi million dollar IT projects tend to steal center stage with large scale reliability projects taking second place; an approach focusing on the recording, quantifying and elimination of recurrent failures will provide significant benefits very rapidly including;

1. The integration of operation and engineering efforts to manage the physical asset base


2. Recording and reporting on the costs of failure, focusing attention on the causes of improved performance; and


3. Energizing teams of analysts in providing fast information regarding the return on their efforts to improve production.