Why PdM programs fail and how to keep yours alive

Figure 1. The PdM program was designed to be a living program, residing within the CMMS and administered by planners/schedulers.

Corporate leadership buy-in to the PdM program had been dragging since, in the past, others had tried similar efforts resulting in program failure after a key individual left. To address this flaw, the PdM program was designed to be a living program residing within the CMMS and administered by planners/schedulers via the work management process — a system for managing CMMS-created work orders (Figure 1).

The desire to perform PdM is much more convincing when real-life functional failure detection events are quoted, rather than a PdM proponent trying to sell management on a PdM program by presenting graphs and statistics. This information is particularly relevant when business decisions are made based on actual equipment material condition, rather than future equipment failure probabilities.

Even before the commencement of a formalized PdM project, the benefits of PdM technology were being realized. Several more maintenance events provided overwhelming reasons to pursue a corporate-wide PdM program. Post-outage gas turbine vibration issues were identified and documented with sufficient validity to support a vendor warranty claim. A large motor driving a pump used in the water plant was subjected to a Megger and polarization index. The results revealed eminent failure. Upon further investigation, a failed mechanical pump seal was the source of the flooded motor. Consider what would have happened had that motor been placed in operation not knowing its true condition. Partial discharge (PD) analysis technology was used at a hydroelectric generating facility. The engineer in-charge with this project felt he was very familiar with PD technology and knew the benefits the technology could deliver. The analysis of measuring PD on these generators resulted in a decision to defer corrective maintenance by five years backed up with supporting and undisputed data. The decision to expand the program across the thermal fleet can be attributed to this event.

The PdM program is supported by a three-legged stool comprising of the CMMS, the work management process, and business process diagramming. The CMMS functionality is leveraged to facilitate the performance of PdM work. The CMMS provides the digital framework and is the vehicle to further the PdM program. The CMMS contains the applications to perform, document, report on, and archive the work. CMMS is the mechanism to do the PdM work — a means of making it visible, elevating it up to the forefront of maintenance dialogue amongst management and crew. The work management process complements the CMMS, It defines the work centers, special tooling, spare parts requirements, contractors, and work center capacity, and it uses scheduling and planning as the centerpiece. The work management process takes the data within the CMMS and fine tunes what is truly relevant and presents the same information in a focused way. The business process is documented by diagramming software and is used as a process development tool tailored for each plant based on its unique manpower and logistical situation.

The CMMS and work management process are two proven attributes of modern work management and execution that are mainstream and part of any maintenance manager’s toolbox. But these two systems working together were not enough to ensure PdM work success. Work management root-cause failure analysis was needed to find out why important PdM work was sometimes getting done but quite often, not.

It was found that PdM work completion was lagging behind other scheduled work. The reasons that were given varied:

• “We don’t have the funds for doing that kind of work.”
• “The plant conditions are not met since we are a peaking plant and our operating schedule is anybody’s guess.”
• “We don’t have the people available to do this.”
• “We don’t have the equipment to do this.”
• “We have never done this in the past. Why start now?”
• “We once did this, but not anymore.”

This is hit-or-miss sporadic work planning, scheduling, execution, and completion at best. These responses from the plant personnel left too many simple questions unanswered — how, what, when, who, where?

The PdM work order process was closely observed at a high level. To get to the heart of the matter, work process questions were asked and directed at the “boots on the ground” journeymen, plant management, PTS engineers (subject matter experts), PTS engineering supervisor, and facility planners/schedulers. The following is what was discovered:

• plant technical services not familiar with CMMS
• plant personnel not familiar with PTS capability
• plant personnel not trusting “corporate” to follow-through
• plant personnel view PdM as “flavor of the month” 
• ambiguity over what the expectation is.

These disconnects foster confusion and apathy. The logical way of capturing what was transpiring in order to expand upon, improve, and document was using diagramming software. It was developed to incorporate processes outside and beyond the work management process realm so that the big picture is truly recorded. Diagramming software communicates the process between all involved parties and is the core of discussion for change or process improvement. It is used to segregate roles and identify responsibilities for each process at each plant. The primary reason it is most useful for troubleshooting process problems is identifying disconnects that otherwise would continue to go unnoticed. Diagramming software is the road map to reach your destination by providing clear, thought-out, direction by “writing it down on paper” — making it visible. Together with CMMS and work management process, diagramming software adds the necessary impetus to drive PdM to reaching its stated goal.

The lubricating oil analysis process was diagramed and presented to all involved for discussion. One work order that didn’t get done was chosen for further scrutiny. It was dissected into its components. The task-list long description contains the steps for performing the work. It was discovered that the procedure lacked the sufficient detail in the chronological order necessary for successful completion. Another aspect of the work order was identifying the contributors to its success and how and when all parties involved interacted with one another. Task lists, from the plant point of view, need to identify those parties external to the plant essential for the successful completion of the work. Oil testing laboratories need to be included in the task-list details, identified by name, phone number, email address, and point of contact in some cases. If, in the future, this information changes due to a vendor change, the task list must be updated and a provision must be made in the system’s management-of-change protocol to address this. And on a much broader scale, the PTS subject matter expert also needed to be identified even if outside of CMMS.

Programs, processes, and software are inanimate objects void of human character and personality. The most important aspect of this process relative to the rest is the human interaction. We speak to and dialogue with people daily in a never-ending exchange of written and spoken communication. It is easy to succumb to tunnel vision and forget who your customers are in the heat of battle when driving to the finish line. This reckless approach results in failing to connect effectively. Keep in mind, you are not a one-person operation and therefore should never do anything that affects customer data in an information vacuum. Constantly assess how your customer is interpreting your actions so that unwarranted surprises do not occur. Keeping your direct contact in the loop of what you are doing and when you are doing it minimizes these chances. This could be a challenge connecting with people who have a dozen other things going on.

Your customer’s perception of this process may require you to create the framework for effective communication pursuant to the demands of the process changes. This framework may take the form of a site visit with a known itinerary disseminated ahead of time, weekly email status report, or just picking up the phone and chatting with the site’s stakeholder to inform them of what you’ve done so far, what you are currently doing, and what you plan to do. Don’t be careless by keeping your customer unaware of your next move. Ensure agreement of change before the change. Here are a several points to ponder before beginning and during the project:

• take adequate time to develop the diagramming process
• keep in mind the diagramming process is iterative and evolving
• know your customers
• minimize touch points, especially giving the plants “one more thing to do”
• bring in snacks
• do what you say you are going to do
• make your presence known by being a change agent
• solicit everyone’s input — don’t operate in an information vacuum
• gain confidence and trust
• find a path moving forward by being a consensus builder
• promote spirited two- and three-way dialogue.

In summary, using all the tools at your disposal, CMMS, work management process, and diagramming software often and early in the PdM process is important for attaining the program’s goals. Review your site’s work completion report keying in on PdM work to see if it is being accomplished. If not, determine why not, find a cause and a solution to remedy the cause. Using these tools will close the loop and increase the chances of all scheduled work and, above all, PdM work getting done.