Reliability Excellence andReliability Excellence andFacility Maintenance Program Assessment Results
1© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 1© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 1© Life Cycle Engineering 2008© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Exercise…
Describe to me the features/attributes of a Penny?
Front and backFront and back…
2© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 2© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 2© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Sustaining the detail…Front of Penny
1. Abraham Lincoln—16th President of the United States
2. “In God We Trust”3. “Liberty”4 Year coin was minted4. Year coin was minted5. Mint mark (D means Denver, S means San
Francisco and P means Philadelphia)B k f PBack of Penny
6. Lincoln Memorial7. Lincoln sitting inside the Lincoln Memorial8. “United States of America”9. “One Cent”10 “E Pluribus Unum” ”Out of many one”
3© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 3© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 3© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
10. E Pluribus Unum … Out of many, one
Question:
• Recommendations of our recent Assessment are to change the philosophy and actions within MEDCOM from:
Performing Maintenance to Delivering Reliability
– What is the intent and the value of making this transition?
4© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 4© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 4© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Background
• Walter Reed AMC criticized for facility condition in late 2007condition in late 2007
• LCE tasked to perform Maintenance Program assessments at seven MEDCOM sites– Ft Detrick, Garrison– Walter Reed, Garrison– Madigan AMC– Brooke AMC
W lt R d AMC– Walter Reed AMC– Darnall ACH
Evans ACH
5© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 5© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 5© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
– Evans ACH
LCE Assessment Process• Interviews, tours, Day-In-Life-of• Touch full spectrum of Maintenance Program
– Government & Contractor– Managers– Staff– Mechanics– Hospital “customers”
• Looking at• Looking at– Processes– Practices– Data– Physical condition
• Compare observations to model of Best Practices
6© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 6© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 6© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Compare observations to model of Best Practices
Reliability Excellence ModelE ll
MANAGEMENT BUDGETING & CONFIGURATION EQUIPMENT AUDITSRELIABILITY
SUSTAINABILITY
ExcellenceContinuous
Improvement
FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT
WORK MEASUREMENT
WORK PLANNINGTRAININGORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURESUPERVISIONCMMS/EAM
OPTIMIZATION
REPORTINGCOST CONTROLMANAGEMENTHISTORYAUDITSENGINEERING
LOSS ELIMINATION
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
PREVENTIVE / PREDICTIVE
MAINTENANCE
SCHEDULING & COORDINATION
WORK CONTROL
PROCESSES
OPERATOR CARE PROCUREMENTEQUIPMENT &
PROCESS DESIGN
C
Implementation
PRINCIPLES
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIORMASTER PLANOBJECTIVES &
GOALSGOVERNING PRINCIPLES
STATUS ASSESSMENT
CULTURE
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENTPhilosophy
MANAGEMENT COMMITMENTPLANT PARTNERSHIPS
7© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 7© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 7© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Specific Observations and Themes• Mechanics self directed, loosely supervised• Inconsistent planning• No cost estimates for repairs or PM’s• Work week schedule not managed
Inefficient material management; no kitting
If you can't describe what you are doing as a process you• Inefficient material management; no kitting
• Inconsistent equipment history information• No Reliability Engineering
as a process, you don't know what
you're doing. No Reliability Engineering
• Non-value PM’s & PdM’s• Informal and inadequate training
W. Edwards Deming
q g• Churn created by customer demands• CMMS underutilized; Performance data inadequate
8© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 8© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 8© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Overall Results MEDCOM average
Reactive0.000 to 0.399
Reactive0.000 to 0.399
Emerging0.400 to 0.549
Emerging0.400 to 0.549
Proactive0.550 to 0.749
Proactive0.550 to 0.749
Excellence0.750 to 1.000
Excellence0.750 to 1.000
Army MTF’s scores ranged from 0.211 to 0.416
Typical Reactive operational characteristics:• Equipment failure crisis• Avoidable cost
L M h i Utili ti /P d ti it
The average American worker has fifty
• Low Mechanic Utilization/Productivity• Ineffective PM• Inadequate performance data
interruptions a day, of which seventy percent have nothing to do with
work.• Inadequate performance data• Short-term focus• Customer driven churn
work.W. Edwards Deming
9© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 9© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 9© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Summary Conclusions
• Program hasn’t kept up with best practices• Program focused on performing maintenance• Program focused on performing maintenance• MTF managers not engaged
A id bl t• Avoidable costs• Mechanic Utilization low
N i i h d• Not managing with data• Short-term focus• Inadequate training• External factors necessitate improvement
10© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 10© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 10© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Recommendations• Move from doing Maintenance to Creating
Reliabilityy• Do the right things; Engineered Maintenance
Plans• Maximize Mechanic Utilization• Plan, Schedule, Manage Performanceg• Manage Materials• Manage with Data in CMMSg• Partner with MTF management• Continuous Improvement
11© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 11© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 11© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
Continuous Improvement
Strategy• Redefine Mission and Vision
– Maintenance to Reliability
• Re-engineer processes and practicesRe-engineer processes and practices• Set clear and measurable performance objectives• Schedule the full work week… lock it down• Maximize Mechanic Wrench Time
– Working smarter… not harder
U i li t f Pl i S h d li P t &• Use specialists for Planning, Scheduling, Procurement, & Inventory Management
• Add Reliability Engineering disciplineAdd Reliability Engineering discipline• Measure performance with data• Fully utilize CMMS
12© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 12© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 12© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
What is the intent and the value of making this transition from performing Maintenance totransition from performing Maintenance to Reliability?
Answer:Answer:The customer wants Reliability … the customer
doesn’t really want Maintenancedoesn t really want Maintenance. – Reliability– Job satisfaction… quality of lifeq y– Cost avoidance– Job security– Increased safety– Calmness vs. chaos
13© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 13© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 13© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
– No Surprises…
Enterprise LedEnterprise LedTheThe “Reliability Excellence” “Reliability Excellence” JourneyJourney
Enterprise LedEnterprise Led
Leve
ls
Loss EliminationA t A il bilit
Lean ApplicationsThe 8 Wastes
ProactiveSt t
LeanState
Maintenance DrivenMaintenance Driven
orm
ance
L
Fix it Before It Breaks
Asset Availability
Reactive
PlannedState
State
Perf
o
Staged Decay
Fix it After It Breaks
Vision Vision
RegressiveState
State Leadership Leadership Long Term CommitmentLong Term Commitment
Reactive Emerging Proactive Excellence0 - 399 400 - 549 550 - 749 750 - 1000
14© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 14© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 14© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
MEDCOM avg.
What’s ahead this week…
• Applying Reliability thinking (Proactive) vs. pp y g y g ( )Maintenance (Reactive) thinking
• Clarity on path forward within MEDCOM
15© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 15© Life Cycle Engineering 2008 15© Life Cycle Engineering 2008
