In the realm of industrial maintenance and reliability, there’s a notorious challenge that companies continuously face – “bad actors”. These recurring failures, which manifest in equipment or components that consistently incur more frequent or costly repairs than their counterparts, are a significant drain on resources, productivity, and reliability.
Identifying and addressing these problematic assets is critical for optimizing operations and improving overall system performance. This article explores what bad actors are, how to identify them, the resolution process, and the substantial benefits that come from eliminating them.
What are the signs of a bad actor?
A bad actor is any asset or component within an industrial system that exhibits chronic failures, leading to higher costs in repairs and maintenance compared to similar equipment. These failures may arise due to multiple factors, including poor equipment selection, design flaws, operational inefficiencies, or inadequate repairs.
The key characteristic of a bad actor is that its failure frequency and associated costs surpass what is deemed acceptable for its asset class. In most cases, bad actors are identified based on failure frequency and/or the Cost of Unreliability (CoUR) within a rolling year. Left unchecked, these assets can significantly impact operational efficiency, driving up maintenance costs and downtime, thus affecting the bottom line.
The first step in tackling bad actors is to correctly identify them. The identification process involves a thorough analysis of failure data and maintenance records, often leveraging Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) documents to benchmark equipment performance. To define an asset as a bad actor, we examine its failure frequency relative to the expected lifecycle of common failure modes. If an asset experiences premature failures—failures occurring during the half-life of its typical failure modes—then it is flagged for further evaluation.
Criteria for identifying bad actors include the following:
- Failure Frequency: Assets that fail more frequently than expected, according to FMEA-based lifecycle benchmarks.
- Cost of Unreliability (CoUR): The cumulative cost associated with recurring failures, including repair costs, downtime, and lost productivity.
- Premature Failures: Failures occurring before an asset have reached its expected end of life, indicating systemic issues.
- Impact on Operations: Bad actors typically disrupt key operations, causing unplanned downtime and impacting operational output.
Root cause analysis: the first step to address bad actor assets
Once bad actors are identified, they must be prioritized based on the severity of their impact. Typically, stakeholders, reliability engineers (REs), and bad actor champions (appointed specialists) collaborate to rank bad actors and determine which ones to address first. This ranking considers both failure frequency and CoUR.
Once a bad actor is identified, the next step is determining the root cause of the recurring failures. This is achieved through a structured Root Cause Analysis (RCA), which digs deeper to uncover the underlying causes of failures, whether they stem from design flaws, improper operation, poor maintenance practices, or other factors. The RCA process often reveals systemic issues that extend beyond the individual asset and affect other areas of the operation.
After identification and RCA, the steps to resolve bad actor failures include the following:
- Propose a solution: Once the root cause is identified, the team proposes a cost-effective solution aimed at permanently resolving the issue.
- Align stakeholders: The proposed solution is then reviewed and aligned with the needs and goals of stakeholders, including operations and maintenance teams.
- Track and steward progress: Using tools like an action tracker, the team monitors the implementation of the solution to ensure steady progress. Continuous monitoring ensures that the improvements are sustained over time, and future bad actors are proactively identified and addressed.
- Assess benefits: Once the bad actor is eliminated or improved, the reliability engineer assesses the financial and operational benefits.
The financial justification for addressing bad actors is significant. A Bad Actor Benefit Calculator is often used to determine the savings gained from eliminating these problematic assets. The calculation involves the cost of failure per year, and factors in lost productivity, maintenance costs, and spare parts, assuming the equipment would fail at the same frequency for its remaining life. By removing these recurring failures, companies can realize substantial savings, both in terms of direct repair costs and the indirect costs associated with downtime and lost production.
What are the benefits of resolving bad actors?
Resolving bad actors is not just about fixing individual assets, it’s about improving overall system reliability. By addressing chronic failures, companies can significantly reduce unplanned downtime, improve safety, and enhance operational efficiency. Furthermore, the systemic issues uncovered during the RCA process often leads to broader improvements in equipment selection, design, and operational procedures, preventing future bad actors from emerging.
Benefits to industry include:
- Reduced maintenance costs: By identifying and addressing bad actors, companies can cut down on the high costs associated with frequent repairs and replacements.
- Increased equipment uptime: Eliminating bad actors leads to more reliable equipment performance, reducing unplanned downtime and improving overall operational efficiency.
- Improved safety: Chronic equipment failures pose safety risks, especially in industries with hazardous operations. By resolving bad actors, companies can enhance workplace safety.
- Optimized asset management: Regularly identifying and addressing bad actors helps maintain a robust asset management system, ensuring that resources are allocated efficiently.
- Long-term operational benefits: Systemic improvements resulting from bad actor resolutions lead to more efficient and reliable operations, yielding long-term financial and operational gains.
In conclusion
Bad actors, while troublesome, offer valuable opportunities for improving system reliability and reducing operational costs. By employing a structured process that includes thorough identification, RCA, and resolution, industries can turn recurring failures into opportunities for systemic improvement.
The benefits of addressing bad actors extend far beyond individual assets, ultimately contributing to safer, more efficient, and cost-effective operations. For industries looking to enhance their reliability and asset management practices, proactively managing bad actors should be a top priority. The financial savings and operational improvements gained from resolving these issues make it a worthwhile investment in the future of industrial maintenance. By embracing a structured, data-driven approach to bad actor management, industries can unlock significant long-term benefits, reinforcing the importance of reliability engineering as a key factor in operational success.
References
1. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 14224:2016
2. Khan, F., & Rathnayaka, S. (2013). Risk-Based Maintenance and Monitoring. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 26(1), 58-68.
3. International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). IEC 60812:2018 - Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA and FMECA).
4. Bloch, H.P., & Geitner, F.K. (2012). Practical Machinery Management for Process Plants (4th ed.)